On coming-to-be and passing-away = De generatione et corruptione

a
statetatgtetet

Mishdint eee
wre Sy AF

APISTOTEAOTS
IIEPI TENEZEQ> KAI ®6OPA>

Bemeeo TOT

ON COMING-TO-BE & PASSING-AWAY
(DE GENERATIONE ET CORRUPTIONE)

ef REVISED TEXT

WITH INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTARY

BY

HAROLD H. JOACHIM

Fellow of New College
Honorary Fellow of Merton College
And Wykeham Professor of Logic in the University
of Oxford

OX EO RG
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

1922

DEC 1 | 1950.

Ve eae

Oxford University Press

London Edinburgh Glasgow Copenhagen
New York Toronto Melbourne Cape Town
Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai
Humphrey Milford Publisher to the UNIvERsITY

2254

TO
THE MEMORY

*

OF

.

INGRAM BYWATER

> *
;
F
S : ~ ah
;
a 5
.
. -
v ‘ ud
~
f
« Py
4 ~
~ a 5
.
-
4 ’

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation

https://archive.org/details/oncomingtobepassOOarisuoft

PREFACE

IN dedicating this book to the memory of the late Professor
Ingram Bywater, I am trying to express, however in-
adequately, my sense of an overwhelming obligation.
Bywater was the founder and first president of the Oxford
Aristotelian Society, and when, about thirty years ago, it
was my good fortune to be elected a member, the subject
of our study was Aristotle’s wepi yevéoews kal pOopas. We
discussed it line by line, every Monday evening during
many successive terms, in our founder’s rooms and under
the inspiring guidance of his wonderful scholarship.

Beyond doubt I have incorporated in this edition many
interpretations and suggestions which I owe either to
Bywater himself or to my fellow-members of the Aristotelian
Society, though I cannot now recall my borrowings in
detail. But I am profoundly sensible of a far deeper and
more general indebtedness. For Bywater’s genius—his
quiet but unmistakable mastery of the subject, his contempt
for everything careless and unscholarly, his shrewd criticism
and dry humour, his ready encouragement of every genuine
endeavour—made of those weekly discussions an experience
unique and unforgettable. The study of Aristotle (we could
not but feel) demanded our utmost efforts: no labour could
be spared, no detail neglected, no difficulty slurred. We
were engaged upon an enterprise arduous indeed and
infinitely laborious, but emphatically and supremely worth
while. It was as if we were privileged to spend those
Monday evenings in close and intimate communion with
the very spirit of original work.

Amongst the many distinguished scholars who were at
that time members of the Aristotelian Society, three have
laid me under special obligations in connexion with this
book—the late Mr. Charles Cannan, Professor John Burnet,
and Professor John Alexander Smith. On its completion

g
lf
At

vi PREFACE

in 1915 my manuscript was entrusted to Mr. Cannan for
submission to the Delegates of the Clarendon Press, and
the lively personal interest he took in it was a source of
constant encouragement to me in the long years of uncer-
tainty that followed—when it was difficult to believe that
anybody would ever care to publish a book on Aristotle or
that I myself should ever be free to return to philosophy
from propaganda. I owe to Mr. Cannan, in addition,
a number of most valuable suggestions and criticisms—
chiefly on my Introduction and Text—which he contributed
a few months before his death. Frequent references in my
Commentary bear witness to the help which, in common
with all students of Greek philosophy, I have derived from
the works of my friend, Professor Burnet. It is more
difficult to define, even approximately, the extent of my
debt to Professor J. A. Smith. Almost every week, during
a friendship of nearly thirty years, we have discussed philo-
sophy in general and Greek philosophy in particular. He
was the originator, I believe, of most of our problems: I am
certain that he contributed whatever of value emerged in
our discussions. It is quite beyond my power to deter-
mine how much in this book is his, or mine, or the joint
result of the efforts of us both.

When I returned to the study of Aristotle’s 7epi yevéoews
kai POopas in the summer of 1910, my object was to prepare
a translation for the series now being published by the
Clarendon Press under the editorship of Mr. W. D. Ross.
It was no part of my intention to write a commentary ;
and it would have seemed to me grotesque, had I been told
that I should venture upon a revision of the text. But it
soon became evident that a mere translation would be of
little or no value, since the intrinsic philosophical interest
of the original depends, to a large extent, upon what it
implies and presupposes. In short, Aristotle’s fascinating
and masterly little treatise calls for a commentary in almost
every sentence. It is full of allusions to the speculations
of his predecessors and contemporaries, and inextricably

PREFACE vii

interwoven with the theories elaborated in his other works
—particularly in the Physics, de Caelo, and Meteorologica,
of which no modern English editions exist. It is, more-
over, often difficult to interpret, and the obscurity (as I soon
discovered) is due, in no small measure, to various defects
in the traditional text.

Thus I was led on, step by step, first to write a detailed
commentary and then to undertake the revision of the
text. _I collated photographs of six manuscripts, EFHJL
and D»*, and took into consideration the commentary of
Philoponos and also the Latin translation published by
Andreas Asulanus in 1483 (see below, p. ix). A few notes
on these sources, and on the use I have made of them, may
here be added.

(1) J = Vindobonensis, phil. Graec. 100.

This manuscript is described by Mr. F. H. Fobes in the
Classical Review, Dec. 1913 (‘ A preliminary study of certain
manuscripts of Aristotle’s Meteorology’) According. to
Mr. T. W. Allen, it is earlier than E and belongs to the
first half of the tenth century. There are a great many
corrections, written above the line, most of which agree
with L. I have noted (under the sign J?) only those which
differ from L. It has not proved possible to follow J in all
passages, but I have treated it as, on the whole, equal in
authority to E. In the following passages I have adopted J’s

1 T am greatly indebted to many friends for assistance in preparing the text.
The late Professor Bywater gave me much valuable advice and presented me
with his collation of a chapter (Book II, ch. 1) in a fifteenth-century manuscript
in his possession; he also sent me notes on the readings in the first three
chapters of Book II which he had inferred from the Latin translation in an old
edition of the commentary of Aquinas. Mr. T. W. Allen (Fellow of Queen’s
College, and at that time University Reader in Greek) gave me his expert
opinion on the dates of EFHJL and D», Mr. W. D. Ross, Fellow of Oriel, .
first drew my attention to J and also to I (see below, p. ix). Mr. J. L. Stocks
(Fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford) lent me his photograph and collation
of J. Finally, I have to thank Dr. A. E. Cowley (Fellow of Magdalen
and Bodley’s. Librarian), Mr. W. Ashburner (Honorary Fellow of Merton),
Mr. A. B, Poynton (Fellow of University College), and Signor Ratti (Librarian
of the Biblioteca A mbrostana) for helping me to obtain photographs of some of
the manuscripts in question.

Vili PREFACE

reading against EFHL:—15? 2, 22> 28, 23° 30, 24° 15
(J?: cf. GT), 28° 28 (J: cf. D), 33 10 (cf. however EHL®*),
36° 12 (cf. however E?H), 37*11. In 17*11 and 33°15 I have
adopted conjectures based on J’s reading. Further J has
an interesting addition (which is reproduced in I’ and in the
translation by Vatablus) at 22°29: and it adds a diagram
in the text at 3217. Finally, at 384, J reads otros for
otras, thus confirming the conjecture of Bonitz (otros obras).
(2) E = Parisiensis Regius 1853.

This manuscript, which belongs to the tenth century, has
been very much doctored, and the corrections are at least
as late as the fifteenth century. (There would seem to be
more than one corrector at work. I have marked the
corrections with the sign E.) It is also somewhat carelessly
written. Nevertheless it is of great importance. In the
following passages I have followed it against FHJL :—16®
12, 16°16, 22% 29 (E!: corr. E*), 24* 35, 25°27, 26° 7, 26° 16,
29°24, 32°31 3225 (cf. F), 34°28, 35°15 (cf. J), 36°18,
39” 20.

(3) F = Laurentianus 87. 7.

A twelfth-century manuscript, of considerable value.
I have followed it against EHJL in 16° 2, 25" 5 (cf. I),
26°12 (cf. OL), 27” 30, 32°18, 35" 24.

I have used the sign F? in a few places where the
corrections in this manuscript seemed worth quoting.

(4) H = Vaticanus 1027.

This is certainly a twelfth-century manuscript, if not of
earlier date: it is probably older than F and is of con-
siderable value. I have adopted its readings against EFJL
at 22°10 (cf. 6°), 26* 19 (cf. however FI’), 27 20 (cf. however
E?FJ), 32° 2 (cf. 6° I), 33° 24.

(5) L = Vaticanus 253.

An inferior manuscript, of far less value than EFH or j,
belonging to the fourteenth or fifteenth century. I have
followed it against EFHJ in three passages: but in all of

them its reading appears to be a mere conjecture of the

* In all references to the text I omit the first figure. Thus, e.g., 3152
becomes 15" 2.

PREFACE ix

scribe and not an original variant. The passages are
2322, 37> 33 (cf. S°), 3896 (an obvious combination of the
reading of H with that of FJ).

(6) D’ = Ambrosianus F. 113 sup.

This manuscript belongs to the fifteenth century and
contains the commentary of Philoponos (cf. Vitelli’s preface
to his edition of Philoponos, p. vi). Bekker used it to some
extent for his text of the Medaphysics. It is of very little
value, and I have quoted it in five passages only (15° 27,
22° 19, 28° 4, 28 28, 34” 7), where its readings seemed of
some interest.

(7) The commentary of Philoponos (’Iadvvov ypappariKxod
‘“Are~avdpéws axodrrxal droonpedoes éx Tov ovvoVaLoV
’Appoviov rod ‘Eppetov perd river iSiwv émiordéoewy KX.) is
very valuable as an aid to the interpretation of Aristotle’s
treatise, and I have used it freely in my notes. Its value for
the constitution of the text is perhaps not so great, but I
have quoted those readings which might conceivably prove
important. My references are to Vitelli’s edition (Berlin,
1897). '=readingsinthe lemmata. *= readings given
in, or inferred from, the paraphrase. ®= readings supported
both by the lemmata and the paraphrase. Where the
manuscripts of Philoponos differ, I have added the signs of
those to which my quotation refers.

(8) I’ = readings (either in Latin or, by inference, in Greek)
from the ‘nova translatio’ which Andreas Asulanus prints
in his edition (3 vols., 1483) of Averroes’ commentary on
Aristotle. The treatise repi yevécews kai HOopas endswiththe
following note :—‘ Nove translationi librorum de generatione
et corruptione ab Averoi Cordubensi commentate: Summi
philosophi Aristotelis ex Stragyra grecie oppido Nicomachi
Medicine artis professoris filii: deo optimo maximoque
favente finis impositus est: Impensa atque diligentia
Andree de asula Venetiis impresse: Anno salutis christiane.
MCCCCLXXXIII septimo calendas octobris ’.

This translation, in spite of certain minor differences, is
substantially the same as the old Graeco-Latin version to

x PREFACE

which Jourdain refers—so far, at least, as I am able to judge
from the specimen page given in his Recherches sur les
anciennes traductions latines d Aristote (new edition, Paris,
1843, Specimen XIII, pp. 412-13). I have quoted its read-
ings only where they seemed of interest or of possible value.

Two other Latin translations which I have compared seem
to be based on Jourdain’s version. They differ from one
another and from the translation I quote : but the differences
are in the main superficial. The first is contained in an old
copy (Paris, 1514) of the commentary of Paulus Venetus
which the Librarian of Wadham College kindly placed at
my disposal. The second was brought to my notice by
the late Mr. E. W. Webster, Fellow of Wadham College.
It is a fragmentary translation of Book I, which originally
formed part of a translation of Aristotle’s physical works
printed at Venice and said to belong to the year 1482.
The copy I examined consists of leaves taken from the
bindings of old books and is preserved in the Library of
Corpus Christi College, Oxford. I have also. consulted the
translation by Franciscus Vatablus (cf. 22° 28, 29, 30) which
is printed in the Berlin Aristotle.

Bekker’s text is based on EFHL, but his apparatus
criticus is not very reliable. I have corrected—usually
without remark—about two erroneous statements concerning
the reading of each manuscript on every page of the Berlin
edition. Many of these errors are doubtless unimportant,
but some at least are serious. The Teubner text by
C. Prantl (Leipzig, 1881) professes to follow the authority
of E wherever possible. This promise, however, is not
fulfilled: and I regret that I have been unable to form
a high opinion of Prantl’s work.

It remains for me to express my hearty thanks to the
Delegates of the Clarendon Press for their generosity in
publishing a book which is most unlikely to prove
remunerative.

H. H. J.

ABBREVIATIONS, ETC.

IN citing my own notes, I write (e. g.) ‘cf. * 142 3-6’ for ‘cf. note on

314° 3-6’.

Adamson = The Development of Greek Philosophy by Robert Adamson,
edited by W. R. Sorley and R. P. Hardie (Edinburgh and London,
William Blackwood & Sons, 1908).

Alexander, a. x. 4. = Alexander’s dropia kai dioers in Alexandri Aphro-
distensis Scripta Minora edited by Ivo Bruns (Berlin, 1892).
Apelt = Bettrdge zur Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie by Otto

Apelt (Leipzig, 1891).

Baumker = Das Problem der Materie in der griechischen Philosophie
by Clemens Baumker (Miinster, 1890).

Beare = Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition from Alcmaeon to
Aristotle by John I. Beare (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1906).

Bonitz = Aristotelische Studien by eee Bonitz (Vienna, 1862,
1863, and 1866).

Bonitz, Jud. = [Index Aristotelicus by Hermann Bonitz (vol. v of the
Berlin Aristotle).

Burnet = Early Greek Philosophy by John Burnet, third edition
(London, A. & C. Black, Ltd., 1920).

Burnet, Ethics = the same author’s edition of Aristotle’s Wicomachean
Ethics (Methuen & Co., 1900). |

Burnet, Greek Philosophy =the same author’s Greek Philosophy,
Part I, Thales to Plato (London, Macmillan & Co., 1914).

Burnet, Phaedo = the same author’s edition of Plato’s Phaedo (Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1911).

Diels = Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, &c. by Hermann Diels,
second edition (Berlin, 1906).

Diels, Elementum = the same author’s Elementum, eine Vorarbeit, &c.
(Leipzig, 1899).

Gilbert = Die meteorologischen Theorien des griechischen Altertums
by Otto Gilbert (Leipzig, 1907).

Heath = Avistarchus of Samos by Sir Thomas Heath (Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1913).

Jaeger = Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Metaphystk des
Aristoteles by Dr. Werner Wilhelm Jaeger (Berlin, 1912).

xii ABBREVIATIONS, ETC.

Martin = Etudes sur le Timée de Platon by Th. Henri Martin (Paris,
1841).
-Pacius = Aristotelis De Coelo lib. IIIT, De Ortu et Interitu II, &c.
by Iulius Pacius (Francofurti, Typis Wechelianis . . . MDCI),
Zabarella = Jacobi Zabarellae Patavini Commentarii in magni Ari-
stotelis libros Physicorum, Item: in libros de Generatione et
Corruptione. Item: in Meteora... Anno MDCII Francofurte,
Typis Wolffzangi Richteri, Sumptibus Ioannis Theobaldi Schon-
vvetteri. |

Zeller * = Die Philosophie der Griechen, &c. by Dr. Eduard Zeller,
fourth edition (Leipzig, 1889).

1 My friend, Mr. R. P. Hardie, lent me his copy of this rare work. There
is a copy, as I have recefitly discovered, in the Library at New College.

INTRODUCTION

Aristotle's conception of a ‘science’, and the place of the
treatise wept yevécews Kai POopads in his writings on
natural philosophy.

§ 1. THE intelligence, which, according to Aristotle, dis-
tinguishes man from the other living things, displays itself in
all the spheres of his activity and characterizes his action
and production as well as his speculation.’ Thus man is
an ‘agent’ (the responsible subject of praise and blame), and
his behaviour is ‘conduct’ (morally good and bad), in so far
as what he does is the effect of deliberate decision (poaépects),
i.e. issues from intelligent desire and not from unreflective
impulse, appetite, or passion.? And he is a craftsman and an
artist, a ‘maker’ of things useful and beautiful, in so far as he
works under the guidance of clearly conceived ideals and with

* Cf. e.g. Metaph. 102525 dor’ «i raca Stdvora } mpaktixh montixn §)
Oewpyntixn.... I use the term ‘intelligence’ in a wide sense, so as to
include what Aristotle calls (in different connexions) vois, d:dvoia, Aoyt-
opos, TO vontikdv, To Adyov €xoy, krA. I cannot here discuss the precise
significance of these different terms, nor whether any of the psychical
functions, which they denote, are attributed by Aristotle to animals
other than man. It is enough for our present purpose to recognize that
man, according to the broad outlines of Aristotle’s doctrine, is distin-
guished from the two lower grades of éuyWvya (from the animals and
plants), because the human wWuy7 is essentially intelligent, thoughtful,
reasoning.. Man is (gov Aoyixdy: and his ‘ intelligence’ permeates and
characterizes all the activities of which the human soul is the origina-
tive source, even those which he seems to share with the other €uyuya.
Like the plants and animals, we assimilate food, grow, and reproduce
our kind ; and, like the animals, we feel, sensate, desire, and move.
But zz us these processes and activities are profoundly affected by the
dominant character of the soul from which they issue—by its ‘ intelli-
gence’ (cf. e. g. De Anima B. 1-3).

2 Cf.e. g. Metaph. 1025%22-25. On mpoaipecrs, see especially Zh.
Nic. T. 1-5.

xiv INTRODUCTION

a technique developed into skill by intelligent practice. His
buildings, for instance, unlike the spider’s web or the swallow’s
nest, result from the deliberate execution of a purpose. This
purpose is not immersed in the blind striving of instinct.
There is nothing latent or metaphorical about it, nor is it only
our misnomer for the unthinking play of natural forces. Itis
the architect’s ideal, the object of his explicit thought. It lies
open to his reflective analysis and becomes the plan by which
he consciously works."

But the intelligence which is displayed in the activities of
the craftsman and the artist, or of the statesman and the
moral agent, is subordinated to an ‘end’ not its own. For
the proper ‘end’ or work of intelligence is truth: and though
the thought embodied in good action and production must be
true, the object of the agent and the maker is not simply the
attainment of truth. They wish to think truly in order that
they may act or make well, and they pursue their investigation
of the truth only so far as is required to make their conduct
good, or their works useful or beautiful. The ‘end’ of the
maker is the good product or work; and the ‘end’ of the
agent is the good conduct itself, i.e. the particular piece of
‘good living’ in question. |

It is only in his speculative activities that man pursues an
‘end’ which is the proper ‘end’ of intelligence. In the
pursuit of knowledge simply for the sake of understanding—
in what Aristotle calls bewpnrikh émiorH pn or Pirrocogia—the
intelligence moves freely towards the attainment, and in the
vision and enjoyment, of the truth.?

§ 2. Aristotle distinguishes, within the whole of speculation,
three ‘philosophies’ or ‘bodies of speculative knowledge’.
The whole system of what we should call ‘knowledge’
or ‘science’ is thus articulated into ‘first philosophy’ or
‘philosophy of God’ (@eo0AoyixH), ‘second philosophy’ or
‘philosophy of nature’ (gvoixy), and ‘mathematical philo-
sophy’ (uaOnparikn).® 3

' Cf. e.g. Metaph. 1032* 32 ff., Phys. 19917 ff.

* Cf. e.g. Eth. Nic. 1095%5, 1139%21-% 4, 1179° 35 ff.; Metaph.
980% 21 ff., 993° 20-23 ; de Caelo 306* 16-17.

° Cf. e.g. Metaph. 1026°18 aote rpeis dy ciev pirocodia Oewpnrixai,

INTRODUCTION ~

It is true that Aristotle speaks of mpaxrix) émiorhun and
TonTiK?) EmtaTHuy, and co-ordinates them with ‘speculative
knowledge’ (Qewpnrik? ériotrypun): but it is clear that neither
MPAKTLK?) NOY TornTiK? émioTHpN is a ‘science’ in any sense
in which we should naturally use that term. The first is not
a theory of ‘action’, nor isthe second a theory of ‘ production ’,
The man who embodies mpaxkrixi) émioripn is the Ppdvipos—
the statesman or wise agent whose conduct is alive with his
own intelligent insight. His émorjun is dpdvnois, the
thought which informs and spiritualizes emotion and impulse,
passion and appetite. It is the thought at work i” good
conduct, the living reasonableness zz ‘ action ’, not a reflective
theory about ‘action’. And the man who embodies zro:ntixy)
émioTypn is the skilled craftsman or the artist, whose
‘making’ is alive with his own intelligent purpose. His
émioThun is Téxvn, a confirmed thoughtful mastery of his
materials—a thought inseparably incarnated in the ‘making’
which it illumines and controls.

This is not the place to discuss Aristotle’s conception of
TPAaKTLKH and sromrik? émioTH un, nor to criticize his articula-
tion of speculative philosophy. It will, however, be noticed
that, 2f we take his statements strictly, neither aesthetics, nor
moral philosophy, nor even logic, exists as a ‘science’ or
purely speculative investigation. Aristotle’s own Poetics, his
Ethics and Politics, and his Organon—however paradoxical it
may seem—are not, in his own view, results of the free
movement of the intelligence in its endeavour to attain to
truth. They are not, or at least they are not primarily,
contributions to ‘science’.

§ 3. ‘First philosophy’ or metaphysics’ is the ‘science

paOnpatixyn, voixn, Geodoyixyn. The treatise epi yevéoews kai POopas
belongs, as we shall see, to @varky, i.e. it investigates a part of the
subject-matter of the philosophy of nature. )

1 ‘Metaphysics’, though a post-Aristotelian term, is a convenient
title for the science which Aristotle himself calls ‘ first philosophy’ or
‘theology’. Aristotle’s writings on ‘first philosophy’ appear to have
been collected after his death—either by Andronikos (as is commonly
supposed) or by some earlier editor (cf. Jaeger, pp. 178-80)—under
the title of ra pera ra hvorxd, ‘the problems subsequent to those of
natural philosophy’.

Xvi INTRODUCTION

which ‘investigates what ts, in so far as it zs, and the
properties which essentially attach thereto’... The meta-
physician, therefore, studies reality as a whole, and the
various kinds and forms of the ‘real’, with a view to determine
what is implied in the ‘being’ of anything which in any sense
‘is’, and to distinguish the kinds and degrees of reality
possessed by the various departments and forms of the ‘real’.
He is thus led to distinguish between ‘substantial’ and
‘adjectival’ being: between that which ‘is’ in its own right
and self-dependently, and that whose ‘being’ is inherence in
something else or is in various senses derivative and depen-
dent. Even within ‘substantial being’ there are degrees of
reality. For there is substance which is through and through
‘simple’; and there is substance which is ‘composite’,
a union of different elements. The former is sheer actuality,
without any unrealized basis of being, without any latent
background, as it were, from which new activities may emerge
or into which the present activities may subside. The latter
is concrete of form and matter; it contains a duality of
elements ; it is in part actual and active, but in part always
potential—a basis capable of emerging into activity, but as yet
unrealized.

The substance which is sheer actuality is alone absolutely
real. It is the primary ‘real ’, the standard and measure of
reality. All other things, which in any sense ‘are’, derive
their ‘being’ in the end from it; they are ranked, in respect
to their degree and kind of reality, according to their
dependence upon, and their approximation to, this primary
‘real 4 |

§ 4. Hence it is the metaphysician who has e.g. to discuss
the Laws of Contradiction and Excluded Middle.* He has to
establish their unquestionable validity, by showing that they
are presupposed in all knowledge and in all ‘being’. They are
in fact the most fundamental laws of ‘being’. They define
in the most general terms ‘what is, in so far as it 7s’,
expressing the conditions to which anything whatever must

1 Cf. e.g. Metaph. 1003? 21 ff.
> Cf. e.g. below, * 36% 14-18 with the passages there cited,
§ Cf. e.g. Metaph. 1005* 19 ff.

INTRODUCTION xvii

conform, if it is to ‘be’ in any sense and at all, and thus
delimiting ‘what is’ from ‘what is not’. For if anything, A,
is to ‘be’, at least it cannot also be not-A; and at least it
must accept as its predicate either x or not-x.

Again, it is the metaphysician who examines and develops
the conception of the primary ‘real’, the absolutely substantial
or self-subsistent. This, as he shows, is a substance which
is through and through actual—a substance which 1s
actuality or life, not a substance which has life or manifests
activity. In it there is no distinction between ‘ nature’ and
‘expression’; its nature is single and is wholly actual or
self-fulfilling. It zs timeless or eternal life, a life which is
activity without change and rest without stagnation.’ And
this eternal life Aristotle identifies with God. For God is
mind, and mind which is wholly and singly expressed in
self-contained and self-determining spiritual activity, in think-
ing turned upon itself, or thinking with thinking for its
object.2, God—the eternal life of mind, the pure spiritual
actuality in which mind is self-expressed—is thus the
primary ‘real’, and the central object of the metaphysician’s
speculation.

And metaphysics, since it is concentrated on the primary
‘real’, is itself the first of speculative sciences ;* and since that
‘real’ is God, metaphysics is the ‘philosophy of God’ or
theolngy God is for the metaphysician the absolutely

‘real’, and the standard and clue by which he explains the
ventity of everything else. And in his investigation of the less
perfect and more derivative forms of being, he is completing
his knowledge of God. For the eternal life, which God is,

1 Cfle.g. Eth. Nic. 1154> 24-28.

2 Cf. e.g. Metaph. 1074” 33 abrov dpa voei, eimep eoti TO kpatiaTor, Kal
gorw 7 vdnows vonoews vdénois. It is clear from Aristotle’s statements
(e.g. in the Metaph. A. 6,7, and 9) that he conceives God as ‘ subject’
rather than as ‘substance’, if I may use Hegel’s distinction. He
speaks of God as otvia, but an ovaia which zs évépyeva dvev duvauews Or
_eidos aivev trys. God is ‘substance’ gua self-subsistent and self-
determining.

* It is mpaory darovatbie on the principle that the rank of a science
depends upon the rank—the degree of reality—of its subject-matter.
Cf. e. g. Metaph. 1026 18-32.

2254 b

“xviii INTRODUCTION

radiates through the whole of ‘being’, communicating itself
(immediately or mediately, and in intenser or weaker degrees)
to all that zs. Or, God is the a@pyx%, from which originates,
and on which depends, the entire universe in all its parts ;
and the Ideal which inspires and animates all things.’

Hence, finally, the metaphysician traces out the divinity in
things, i.e. exhibits the degree and kind of reality which
belongs to the various departments of ‘ being’. It is, therefore,
a part of his task to determine in what precise sense the
‘composite substances ’—the perceptible bodies, animate and
inanimate, which constitute the world of ‘nature ’—are real ;?
and, again, to show what kind of ‘being’ is to be attributed
to the mathematical things, e. g. to the solids and plane figures
of the geometer, and to the numbers of the arithmetician.°
Thus the metaphysician discusses and explains what the
natural philosopher and the mathematician take for granted,‘
viz. the ‘being’ or reality of their subject-matters.

§ 5. Whereas metaphysics investigates reality as a whole,
or ‘what is, simply in respect to its being’, natural and
mathematical philosophy select, each of them, a determinate
‘part’ or ‘kind’ of the real.6 The gvovkés selects percep-
tible and changeable substance, and studies it in respect to
the movement, or to the other forms of change, to which it is
liable. And the pa@nparikés studies the perceptible sub-
stances neither gua real, nor gua changeable, but only qua
quanta (discrete and continuous), i.e. gua numerable and
measurable. !

Natural philosophy is thus doubly contrasted with meta-
physics. For the @vovkés studies a part only of the real, and

1 Cf. below, * 36%14-18, * 36 30-32. Aristotle’s God is a self-
subsisting and self-fulfilling spiritual activity, ‘apart from’ or transcend-
ing the perceptible world: and yet God is a/so the divine life,
pervading all the parts of ‘ being’ as the perfect Order which gives to
them their unity and intelligibility. Cf. e.g. Metaph. 1075* 12-109.
Plato’s idéa tov dyaGod is, in the same way, both transcendent and
immanent :'cf. Repudlic 508 eff.,and 526d,e.. 2’

2 Cf. e.g. Metaph. Z and H.

5 Cf. e.g. Metaph. M and N.

* Cf e.g. Metaph. 1025 10-18, Post. Anal. 76° 31 ff., and often.

5 Cf.e.g. Metaph. 1003* 22-26, 1025» 3-13.

INTRODUCTION xis

investigates that part not gua real, but gua changeable. The
metaphysician, on the other hand, investigates all forms of
the real in respect to their reality. And natural philosophy
is subordinate to metaphysics, being the ‘second’ of the
speculative philosophies on the same principle on which
metaphysics is the ‘first’.' For the central object of the
metaphysician’s study is the primary ‘ real’—the timeless, im-
perceptible and changeless substance, which is ‘simple’ (a7 4),
i.e. through and through one sheer actuality. But the part
of the real which the gvaikés studies is ‘composite sub-
stance’ (ovvOeros ovcia), i.e. a union of two elements,
concrete of form and matter, and thus secondary and deriva-
tive in its being.’

Mathematics, alone of the speculative philosophies, has for
its subject-matter not substance at all, but adjectival characters
abstracted from the substance which they qualify.* The per-
ceptible substances are quanta, i.e. quantified things. They
have shape and size; they have unity, and multiplicity of
parts. And certain further properties attach to the: percep-
tible things in virtue of, or mediately through, their quantitative
characters. These quantitative characters are thus the logical
subjects of certain 7é@n, which in fact inhere not in them, but
(mediately through them) in the perceptible things. It is

1 See above, p. xvii, note 3, and cf. e.g. Metaph. 1026° 27 ff.,
1037* 13-17.

* The scope of the province of voxxy is explained below, § 10. The
‘composite substance’ which it studies is perceptible, and subject at
least to movement, if not also to the other forms of change. Cf. e.g.
Metaph. 1069* 30 ff.

8 In this sense, the mathematical sciences are said to be mepi ein
(cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 79%7-10). Aristotle in one passage excepts
astronomy. He says that ‘it investigates perceptible (but eternal)
substance, and is thus, of all the mathematical sciences, most akin to
first philosophy’ (JZetaph. 1073"3-8). But this view of astronomy.
seems to be due to the fact that Aristotle substantiated (i.e. materialized)
the spheres of Eudoxos and Kallippos, thus transforming an abstract
mathematical system into a mechanical system of homocentric
spherical shells (see below,* 36% 14-» 10, with the passage there quoted
from Sir Thomas Heath’s 4ristarchus of Samos). Astronomy, as we
shall see in § 6, like optics and acoustics, is both a mathematical
science and a part of guowky. Cf. also below, § 10.

b2

XX INTRODUCTION

these quantitative characters, these ‘adjectivals’, which the
mathematician severs by definition from their substances. In
his science they become the subjects, of which he demonstrates
wdaOn; i.e. they are treated as if they were substances, really
subsistent things, the owners of the properties which they
mediate. The mathematical things, therefore, of which the
mathematician demonstrates certain properties, are mere
adjectives abstracted from the perceptible substances. The
solids, planes, lines, points, and units, whose ‘being’ the
geometer and the arithmetician take for granted, are in fact so
many specific determinations of the quantitative character
of the perceptible things. Their ‘being’ is adjectival, not
substantial.’

§ 6. Although Aristotle speaks of mathematics as a single
‘speculative philosophy ’, he also speaks of ‘ the mathematical
sciences’,? and attributes to each of them a distinct ‘kind’,
or sphere, of ‘being’ as its subject-matter. Geometry and
arithmetic e.g. have reciprocally-exclusive yévn dzokeipeva.
Continuous magnitude on the one hand, and number on the
other, are self-contained wholes or ‘kinds’ of ‘being’, so that
it is illegitimate to attempt to prove an arithmetical conclusion
through a geometrical middle term, or vice versa. In every
demonstration in the science of arithmetic, all three terms
(major, minor, and middle) must belong to the sphere of
number: and in every demonstration in the science of
geometry, all three terms must ae to the sphere of
continuous magnitude.®

Aristotle’s conception of the unity of a science is puzzling
and perhaps not altogether consistent. A ‘science is one,
when its subject-matter is a single ‘kind’.* But what con-
stitutes a single ‘kind’ is far from clear. Thus, although

1 Cf. e.g. Phys. 193 22 ff., Metaph, K. 1061% 28 - © 33, A, 1073? 3-8,
M. 1077 12—1078% 31. The passages cited from K and M undoubtedly
express Aristotle’s doctrine, even if these books were not written by
Aristotle himself.

* Cf. e.g. Metaph. 1003%25 (ai padnpatixal rav émornpoev), 1026%
25-27.

® Cf. Post. Anal. 75% 38 -» 20.

* Cf. e.g. Metaph. 1003.19, Post. Anal. 87% 38—» 4,

quanta fall apart into at least two reciprocally-exclusive
‘kinds’ (into number, the system developed out of an
indefinite plurality of ‘units’, and into spatial magnitude,
the system developed out of ‘points and lines’), nature is
a single ‘kind’ of ‘being’. Hence @vorky is a single science,
although it includes in its survey a great variety of perceptible
substances, some of which are eternal, whilst others come-to-
be and pass-away. Mathematical philosophy, on the other
hand, is rather a series of connected sciences than a single
science. There are ‘parts’ of paOnyariky, and it includes
within itself a ‘first’ and a ‘second’ science, and others con-
_ tinuing the series.2, The order of these successive mathe-
matical sciences appears to be determined by the increasing
complexity of the mathematical things whose ‘ being’ is taken
for granted. Arithmetic e.g. is prior to geometry in the
series, because the arithmetician assumes the ‘being’ of the
‘unit’ (odafa d&eros) only, whereas the geometer assumes
the ‘being’ of the ‘point’, i.e. unit p/zs position (odata beds).

The mathematical sciences come into close connexion
with certain provinces of g@voixy. Thus e.g. acoustical,
optical, and astronomical phenomena are investigated, in
different ways, both by the philosophy of nature and by
mathematics. The gvaikés establishes empirical generaliza-
tions as to what combinations of notes, or what musical
intervals, produce consonances and dissonances. But the
scientific explanation of these (and other) acoustical pheno-
mena is arithmetical, derived from the theory of ratios.
Again, the @vavxéds observes the phenomena of light and
establishes empirical generalizations with regard e.g. to the
deflexion of the visible line (the ray) in various media and its
reflection from various surfaces. But the scientific explana-
tion is geometrical, a corollary of the abstract theory of lines
and angles. Lastly, the g@uvovkés studies the ‘heavenly
bodies’. He observes the apparent sizes, shapes, and
distances of the stars and planets, and formulates empirical
generalizations with regard e.g. to eclipses, risings, and

1 Cf. Metaph. 1005* 34 (év ydp rt yévos rod dyros 7 iors), 1025” 18-21.
* Metaph. 1004*6-9, and cf. 1026% 23-27. .
3 Cf. Post. Anal. 87% 31-37. ©

xxii INTRODUCTION

settings, and so forth. But here again the scientific explana-
tion is mathematical, a corollary of the geometry of solids,
and presumably also of an abstract theory of motion, i.e. of
dynamics."

§ 7. Each of these sciences—the mathematical sciences and
the philosophy of nature—has a determinate ‘part’ or ‘kind’
of ‘being’ asits province. And the character of such a ‘kind’
determines the procedure of the science in its endeavour after
truth. The procedure is what Aristotle calls ‘demonstration ’
(aréderéis, amrodeckTiKds ovAdoyiopés), and each of these
sciences is a ‘demonstrative science’ (drodeckriky EmioTH un).”
The aim of a ‘demonstrative science’ is (we may say shortly)
so to analyse and resynthesize its ‘kind’, that the mediated
necessary judgements, which are the conclusions of the science,
precisely reflect the mediated necessary connexions between ,
substances and properties which are the inner articulation of
the ‘kind’. The ‘truth’ here to be attained is a replica of
tne real :.

Each ‘kind’ is a relatively self-contained whole, a world
of ‘substances’ ® with their essential properties. The sub-
stances, however, which are the inhabitants of this world,
though individual, are nevertheless universal or typical.
They are the imfimae species (the &ropa «idn) of the ‘kind’
(the yévos) in question. ‘Man’ e.g. is an individual, or
unique, species of ‘animal’, which itself is a specification of
capa pvorkov, the ‘kind’ studied by gvowxy. Similarly
‘the circle’ is an individual, or unique, type of plane figure.

1 Cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 78° 34—79° 16, Physics 193» 22—194° 12.
Unfortunately Aristotle’s theory of the relation of astronomy,
acoustics, and optics as parts of @uvoixy (the ‘ subalternate’ sciences)
to the mathematical sciences (the ‘ subalternant’ sciences) is nowhere
fully worked out. I have tried to interpret his slight indications
correctly : but— particularly with regard to astronomy (cf. above, P. xix,
note 3, and below, § 10)—the whole subject is very obscure.

* The doctrine of the Post. Anal. as to the aim, nature, and method
of arode:kriKn émvorijun undoubtedly applies to the mathematical sciences
and to dvouxy. It is doubtful whether—and, if so, under what
qualifications-—-it applies to metaphysics.

* For the purposes of the Post. Ana/., the mathematical things, gza
logical subjects, are treated as if they were substances: cf. above, § 5.

INTRODUCTION Xxiii

And both ‘man’ and ‘the circle’ are universal; a ‘such-
everywhere-and-always’, not a ‘this-here-and-now’.

Each of these ‘substances’—each @ropov eidos—can be
analysed, though not divided. The analysis, that is to say, is
into ‘constitutive moments’ of its individual being, not into
separable parts. And these constitutive moments reduce to
two—viz. ‘the proximate generic nature’, of which the
substance is a specification, and ‘the last differentia’, i.e.
the differentia which converts that generic nature into the
substance, or species, in question.? The constitutive moments
are ‘essential’ predicates* of the substance. For they are
necessary to its being, elements in its essential nature (ra év
TO Ti éoTL KaTnyopovpeva), and the formula which enumerates
them is its definition. Thus the definition of ‘man’ (¢@ov-
dirovy Aoyikév), or of ‘the circle’ (€wimedov 7d ex Tod pécou
igov),* resynthesizes the individual substance out of its

1 “Sokrates’ and ‘ Kallias’, or ‘this circle’ and ‘that circle’, are
distinguishable only for aio@nots, not for émoripn. They do not differ
in their knowable or definable being, in their ‘form’. Hence their
difference is irrelevant for science; it is an affair merely of the
coincident and variable properties, or merely of ‘the matter’ in which
‘the form’ is embodied. For further explanations, and some qualifica-
tion, of this doctrine, see below, § 8. Aristotle, it may be thought,
comes perilously near to the theory which he imputes to Plato and
condemns: for the dropoy eidos (‘man-as-such’, ‘the circle’, &c.)
shows unmistakable affinity to the Platonic idéa as Aristotle interprets
the latter. Yet at times he is fully conscious of the difficulty: and
perhaps the distinction between émor7py as a efis, and émtornun in its
- fulfilment as Oewpia, is in part an attempt to meet it (cf. e.g. Metaph.
A, 1071 24-29, M. 1087% 10-25, de Animia 417 22-29).

2 Any remoter genus, and any differentia specifying such remoter
genus, may be stated in the ‘set of terms’ or formula (the Adyos)
defining the substance. But in principle, and for ultimate analysis, the
constitutive moments reduce to the proximate gewus and the last
differentia (eidomows or teAcuvtaia Siagopa), the latter being related to
the former as évépyeia to Sivayis: cf. Metaph. 1037” 8— 1038* 35.

8 Cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 73% 34-37 ka? attra 8 60a imdpye te ev TO Ti
eoTw, oloy Tpryov@ ypappy Kal ypappy orrypy () yap otcia aitay x rovTey
€ori, kai ev TH Aby@ TH Eéyorte Ti eoriy evuTapXet) ..-«

4 This is given as the definition of ‘circle’ in RheZ. 1407” 27: cf.
also Post. Anal, 92 20. :

XXiv INTRODUCTION

proximate genus and its ultimate differentia, i.e. out of
‘moments’ resulting from its analysis.

Now every science takes for granted the being and the
meaning of its ‘kind’, and of the ‘substances’ into which it
is articulated, or which are its &ropa eidn. Plane geometry
e. g. assumes that there is such a thing as plane figure, and
that plane figure is so-and-so, or must be ¢hus defined. It also
assumes that the droya eidn of the yévos—viz. points and
lines, and the more complex plane figures (triangle, square,
circle) which develop out of them—zm” some sense ‘are real’,
and mean so-and-so, i.e. must be ¢hus defined. Natural
philosophy similarly takes for granted the meaning and the
being of Pvaikdy o@pa as a yévos, and the meaning and
being of the subordinate genera and of the ‘substances’ or
a&roua edn into which it is articulated. This assumption
of the ‘being’ of the kind and of its articulations is the
wmdbeors of the science.! And either the ‘kind’ itself,
or its subordinate genera, or (in the majority of cases)
its @rowa «ibn figure as the mznor terms of the demon-
strative syllogisms which constitute the science; they are
the subjects, of which the science demonstrates certain
properties.

§ 8. But the articulated ‘kind’ which is the world of
a science—a world, whose inhabitants are individual, and yet
universal, substances—exists in fact and actually in, and as,
an indefinite multiplicity of singular perceptible embodiments,
each of which is a ‘this-here-now’, not a ‘ such-everywhere-
and-always’. From this point of view, the province of the
‘real’, upon which a science reflects and which it has to
explain, is a world of singular substances*—a world of
aic@nrd, rich with an inexhaustible detail of perceptible
properties. It is a world manifest to concrete experience,
i. €. to sense combined with intelligence ; not a world manifest

* Cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 76% 31-36, » 3-6, 11-13: and for the meaning
of imdbeots, trorider Oa in this connexion, cf. e. g. 72% 18-24, 76° 16-19,
35-39, 93” 24-25, &c. The ‘kind’, as that which the science ézo-
riBerat, is Called the yévos imoxeipevov. ,

* ‘Substances’, in the sense in which Kallias and Sokrates are
‘substances’: cf. Categ. 2* 11-14.

INTRODUCTION XXV

tn toto to thought.’ And out of this far richer (but only partly
intelligible) world, science has to select the terms of its
demonstrations—isolating by definition its substances, its
properties, and its connecting causes.’

Some amongst the characters, which are predicable of the
singular representatives of an @ropov eidos, are essential to
their being, as the ‘constitutive moments’ of their essential
nature. These, as we have seen, are formulated by the man
of science as the definition of the dropov eidos—of that
individual, but yet universal, ‘substance’ (the minor term of
the scientific demonstration) whose ‘being’ and ‘meaning’ he
takes for granted.* The remaining characters may be grouped

1 Under ‘sense’ I here include vdnois, so far as concerns the
mathematical things: cf. MZefaph. 1036% 2-12.

? Science starts from a province of the ‘ real’ presented to perception.
The ‘world of science’ zm this sense (viz. as that upon which the
science reflects, which it endeavours to explain) is a world of singular
substances, of aia@nra. But the ‘real’ which is made manifest by
science (the ‘ world of science’ as the adequate correlate of scientific
explanation) is an intelligible articulated ‘kind’, an ordered sphere of
‘commensurate’ connexions between universal substances (types) and
universal properties. The difficulty in Aristotle’s position is that (i) he
sometimes insists that the singulars (¢#zs man, ¢hzs horse, &c.) alone
are ‘substances’ in the proper and primary sense of the term (cf. e.g.
Categ. and Metaph. \l. cc.): and yet (ii) he emphasizes the sub-
stantiality of the objects of gvovxy in contrast to the adjectival
character of the mathematical things (cf. above, § 5). Weshould have
expected him ezther (i) to deny the self-subsistence of the perceptible
singulars, i.e. to show that the aio @nra are only imperfectly ‘ real’—as
indeed he sometimes does: or (ii) to insist that the intelligible
world of dvorxi, like the intelligible worlds of the mathematical sciences,
is a world of adjectivals isolated by definition from the perceptible
‘ singular substances which they qualify ; and that, therefore, the droya
etOn of duorkny (e. g. ‘man’) are no more ‘ substantial’ than ‘ the circle’
or ‘the number two’. Cf. Metaph. 103527-31; and above, p. xxiii,
note I.

8 Cf. above, § 7, and Post. Anal. 96422-14. In some of the
demonstrations of a science the minor term may be the ‘kind’ itself,
or some subaltern genus, i.e. some specification of the ‘kind’ short of
(wider than) an dropoy «idos. This, however, does not affect the
general principle of the doctrine. For the ‘kind’, or any subordinate
specification of it, is predicable as a ‘constitutive moment’ in the

XXxVi INTRODUCTION

together as 7é0n or cupBeBnkéTa ; and from amongst them
the science selects its mayor terms, i.e. the properties whose
‘meaning’ it assumes, but whose ‘being’ it has to demonstrate.’

In the ideally-perfect scientific demonstration? the 7éOos,
which is the major term, must be ‘commensurate’ with the
minor term. In other words, if e.g. the minor term is an
dropov «idos, the major term must be a property which
(a) belongs to every singular representative of the «idos, and
(b) belongs to the singulars as the necessary consequence of
their ‘essential nature’. Such a property is called a ka?
avTs ovpBeBnkbs (a proprium) of its subject. It attaches to
that subject (viz., in the case supposed, to the &ropor €idos) as
a whole, and can neither ‘be’ nor ‘be defined’ without the
latter. It is found qualifying every singular representative
of the eidos, and it qualifies (strictly-speaking)* no other
singular substance. The judgement which affirms the
inherence of a proprium in its subject asserts a precise,
reciprocal, nexus between universals. Such a nexus is
‘universal’ (ka@6Aov) or ‘commensurate’: and it is the object
of every ideally-perfect scientific demonstration to establish
a mediated universal nexus of this kind.‘

essential nature of all the singular neprescncantycs of an dropoy ¢idos:
cf. above, p. xxiii, note 2.

1 Cfie.g. Post. Anal. 76% 32-36, » 6-16, &c. The ‘meaning’, which
the man of science assumes, is (when explicitly formulated by him)
a ‘nominal definition’ of the aos, a Adyos Tov ti onpaiver TO dvopa
(cf. e. g. Post. Anal. 93” 29-32). ‘The ‘being’ of'a dos is its inherence
in its proper subject.

2 i.e. in the ovAAoyopos rod Sidr (in demonstratio potissima). The
proofs actually occurring in any science may fall short of this ideal in
various ways and degrees. Cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 74% 32-4, 78922—
79° 16.

3 * White-black-or-coloured’ is a proprinm of surface (émupdvera).
Hence, though Sokrates e.g. is white, ‘white’ really attaches not to
Sokrates, but to the surface limiting the solid (c@pua) which is isolable
by definition as a quantitative character of Sokrates (cf. above, § 5).
In relation to Sokrates ‘white’ is a mere coincident mdOos, a mere
cvpBeBnkés. It has no direct essential or necessary connexion with him
gua (gov hoytkov.

* Thus e.g. geometry demonstrates that ‘the triangle’ (i.e. any
triad of internal angles resulting from the enclosure of a surface by

INTRODUCTION | xxvii

It is true that Aristotle sometimes speaks as if, in certain
regions of the province of @vovxy, strict ‘universal’ con-
nexions did not obtain; and as if, therefore, the ‘ideal’ of
scientific demonstration must at times be set lower. Thus
in astronomy the ¢vovxés demonstrates ‘deprivation of light’
of the moon; in meteorology he proves the occurrence of
‘thunder’ in the clouds; and, in what we should call
‘physiology’, he demonstrates becoming ‘grey-haired ’ of man.
But neither moon, nor clouds, nor man exhibit these 7é6n
invariably or commensurately. Man grows grey only as
a general rule; the moon is frequently, but not always,
eclipsed ; and thunder occurs only occasionally in the clouds.
Hence (Aristotle seems at times to maintain) the aim of the
guoikds is sometimes to establish connexions which are not
timeless and not commensurate, but hold only as a general
rule or for the most part.

But such apparent exceptions disappear on closerinspection.
For the cause, which links such wdé@n to their subjects,
further determines and purifies either the wdé6n or the
subjects in such a way that the connexion when demonstrated
(i.e. the mediated nexus which is the ‘conclusion’ of the
am6der€is) is commensurate and reciprocal. Thus (not moon
‘in general, but) moon in such a position that the earth
screens it from the sun is deprived of light. And this
deprivation of light—viz. one caused by the avrigpagis yjs—

three straight lines) ‘is equal to two right angles’. The application to
the isosceles is a mere corollary, and forms no part of the essential
logical structure of the science (cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 73” 26—74? 3).
Propria are ‘essential’ predicates (xa6’ aira) of their subjects in the
second sense of xa@ atra recognized by Aristotle (2d. 73*37 -" 3). For
a predicate is essenzzal (i) if it is a ‘ constitutive moment’ in the being
of its subject (cf. above, p. xxiii, note 3), or (ii) if it is a necessary con-
sequence of its subject’s being. In this second case, the Aéyos which
defines the predicate must contain the name (or the definition) of the
subject as anelement. Thus ‘ straight-or-curved’ is a proprium of
line and ‘odd-or-even’ of number. Every line must be either
straight or curved, every number either odd or even, and nothing else
can as such possess these properties. Moreover, it is impossible to
define oddness or evenness (or straightness or curvedness) without
specifying number (or line) in the definitory formula.

XXViil INTRODUCTION

is lunar eclipse, a proprium of moon. Moon-gua-screened-
by-the-earth is deprived of light commensurately and time-
lessly. And the noise, which is thunder, occurs inevitably
and invariably in the clouds in so far as fire is quenched in
them: ¢hat noise—viz. the noise caused by the quenching of
fire—is a proprium of clouds.’ Finally, growing grey is one
_ amongst the alternatives of a ‘disjunctive’ proprium of man.
For man, in so far as increasing age destroys the hair-sacs or
follicles, must either grow grey or grow bald, as inevitably as
number must be either odd or even, and line straight or
curved.’

§ 9. In the ideally-perfect demonstration the middle term
expresses the proximate (i.e. the precisely-adequate) cause
of the inherence of the proprium in its commensurate subject.°
Thus, given extinction of fire in the clouds, the noise which
is thunder precisely and inevitably results: and, given the
interposition of the earth screening the moon from the sun,
that deprivation of light, which is a lunar eclipse, is the
immediate and inevitable effect. Aristotle identifies this
cause, which appears as the middle term, with a definition
of the major term.’ And in fact, as we saw,° the middle

* This definition of thunder (Wédos drocBevyupevov rupéds év veheow),
which Aristotle constantly quotes in illustration, appears to be derived
from the views of Anaxagoras. Aristotle’s own theory of thunder is
different : cf. Meteor. 369% 1o—370* 33.

* I have no doubt that this is the true doctrine, and the only one
which is consistent with Aristotle’s general conception of dmodeuxrixy
emortnun: cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 75° 33-36, 98% 35-38. Aristotle, how-
ever, hesitates: and the reason of his hesitation is his anxiety to
maintain man’s freedom as an agent, which appeared to him to demand
a real indeterminateness in certain parts of nature (cf. de Interpr.
189 28—19% 22, Pr. Anal, 3213-22, Post. Anal. 8719-27). Hence
he sometimes treats imperfect stages in the development of a scientific
demonstration as if they were distinct, though inferior, types of dmddetéis.

® 1d mp@ropr airov (cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 78% 24-26).

* Another example is the demonstration that ‘ broad-leaved shrubs
must lose their leaves’ through the mzddle méis rod typod, or dia rd
myyvva Oa roy ev TH TvVaYer TOD Oméppatos bmdv: cf. Post. Anal. 98° 35 ff.,
» 32-38, 99% 21-29. |

° Adyos Tov mpwrov dkpov, Post. Anal. 99*21-29: cf. also 93° 3-14.

§ Above, p. xxvii.

INTRODUCTION Xxix

helps to define the major (and sometimes also the mznor)
and thus purifies the connexion, rendering it ‘commen-
surate ’.

In so far, therefore, as a man of science achieves the
knowledge which is his aim, and succeeds in expressing it in
the ideally appropriate form, his science will appear as an
ordered system of apodeictic syllogisms. In these syllogisms
every term will be universal ; and zm the basal syllogisms, on
which the system depends, every premiss will be an im-
mediate ‘commensurate’ judgement, reflecting an immediate
reciprocally-necessary nexus between substance and pro-
prium, or substance and ‘constitutive moment’, or proximate
cause and proximate effect. The conclusion of every syllogism
will include the middle term and will be a mediate ‘com-
mensurate’ judgement, reflecting a reciprocally-necessary
nexus between substance and proprium mediated through the
proximate cause of the inherence of the latter in the former.
The three terms of every such apodeictic syllogism can be
rearranged and concentrated so as to constitute the adequate
scientific definition of the proprium in question. Thus
Anaxagoras’s definition of ‘thunder’? is the concentration of
the three terms of a scientific demonstration, and includes
(a) the clouds as the subject in which, (b) owing to the
extinction of fire, (c) that determinate noise, which ‘ thunder’
means, must occur. And the adequate definition of ‘lunar
eclipse’ is a Adéyos including all three terms of a cvAAoyiopos
Tod di6Tt. For it states (a) the moon (the minor term) in
which, (b) owing to yas avrippagéis (the middle term), (c) that
deprivation of light (the major term), which ‘eclipse’ means,
must occur.’

* Cf. above, p. xxviii, note I.

? Cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 71%19-25, 84>19—85%1, 94%1-14. The
scientific definition of piéis (see below, * 2822) is a good example of
a concentrated apodeictic syllogism.

None of Aristotle’s examples completely fulfils the conditions of
a perfect apodeictic syllogism, adapted to form the basis of a system of
scientific demonstrations. The instances quoted above (‘thunder’,
‘eclipse’, ‘shedding of leaves’) are derivative syllogisms: their minor
premisses are not immediate, and their middle terms are neither
‘constitutive moments’ nor Jxofvia of their minor terms. Yet the

XXX INTRODUCTION

It is to be observed that, if we take the major and minor
terms of an apodeictic syllogism without the middle, we get
a formula (Néyos) which is the ‘nominal definition’! of a
mé0os. Thus ‘noise in the clouds’, ‘deprivation of light in
the moon’, ‘unification of the combinable bodies’ (7@v puixrav
€vwois) are the nominal definitions of BpovTH, Exrexis, and
pigéis respectively. And if we expand these formulae into
judgements (‘In the clouds there is noise’, ‘In the moon
there is deprivation of light’, ‘The combinable bodies exhibit
unification’), we get in each instance that unmediated
suggestion of a demonstrable connexion which Aristotle calls
a mpoBAnpa.? The man of science starts with a suggested
connexion of this kind—with a proposed conclusion. His
aim is to mediate it, to find a middle or middles which will
convert it into a demonstrated truth. Hence Aristotle
sometimes represents him as filling up the interval between
subject and predicate of the wpéBAnpa, by interpolating the
middle or middles which are required to ‘pack’ the whole
interval with ‘elementary’, immediate, or self-evident con-
nexions.°

schema of the ideally-perfect basal demonstrative syllogism, according
e.g. to Post. Anal. 71” 19-25, is :—

B precisely and reciprocally carries with it A, for B is A’s proximaté
cause ; C immediately and inevitably involves B (either because
B is a ‘constitutive moment’ of C’s being, or because B is a
proprium immediately flowing from C’s essential nature) ;

Therefore C is commensurately linked with A through B.

The favourite example of the old commentators is :—

Rationality (i.e. reason embodied in an animal organism) carries
with it, precisely and reciprocally, the power to laugh (i.e. the
power to express the intelligent appreciation of the ludicrous by
a determinate modification of breathing) ;

Man immediately and inevitably involves rationality, as the specific
differentia constituting his being ;

Therefore Man gua Xoyxdv—and only Man—must be yeAaorixér.

1 Cf. above, p. xxvi, note I.

* Cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 98» 32.

° Cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 84°19—85%1. Aristotle’s conception of
arddecéts, looked at from this point of view, is in principle identical
with Descartes’ conception of ‘ deductio’: see my Zssay on the Nature
of Truth, pp. 69-72.

INTRODUCTION XXxi

§ 10. The composite perceptible substance, which the
pvokés studies in so far as it is changeable,' is displayed in
our experience as a multiplicity of ‘natural bodies’ (dvoid
g@pata). A ‘natural’ body is one which contains, innately
inherent in it, ‘an_originative source of motion and rest’
(dpxi) kwhoews Kal ordéoews) or ‘an impulse to change’ (6pyy
petaBoArns Eugutos). This épx7 is the Pvous of the body, as
the ‘form’ which constitutes it, distinguishing a natural from
a mathematical body (a ‘solid’) and from a product of réxvn.?
The ‘kind’, which is the world of natural philosophy, may
be most simply and adequately called cépua dvorkév. It is
the business of the g@voixds to demonstrate of the ‘kind’
itself, and of the subordinate genera and @ropa «idn into
-which it is articulated, the propria which commensurately
attach to them.*®

The ‘kind’ itself—@vorxdy c@pa in general—is the subject
of Aristotle’s Physics, the first‘ in the series of his works on
natural philosophy. In it he discusses (i) mpérn &An and
‘the contraries’ (eidos, orépyovs), as the fundamental ‘ con-
stitutive moments’ of all gvoika& oopata which are yevynra
kat d0aprd: (ii) dois, i.e. the originative source of motion
and rest which constitutes all void cdpara, whether eternal
or perishable: (iii) motion, the proprium of all duoika copata:
(iv) place, time, and continuity, which are predicable of
natural body and are necessarily implied in motion: (v) the
infinite and the void, which are erroneously supposed to te
implied by moving bodies: and so forth.°

Next in the systematic order is the de Caelo, in which
Aristotle studies the ‘simple’ or elementary natural bodies,
in so far as they form so many strata composing the physical

1 Cf, above, p. xviii. *-Cf. e.g. Phys. B. 1.
_ § In what follows I have drawn freely upon Zabarella’s De naturalis
sctentiae constitutione (pp. 2-134 in his De rebus naturalibus, Franco-
furti, MDCXviI). In that admirable work the reader will find an
excellent account of the subject-matter of @vorcy and a most thorough
discussion of the systematic connexion of Aristotle’s ‘ physical’
writings.

4 First in the systematic or logical order, not necessarily first in the
order of writing.

5 Cf. Zabarella, 1. c., pp. 16-39.

XXXli INTRODUCTION

universe. For the natural bodies comprised within the
physical universe are either (i) ‘simple’,’ or (ii) complex,
resulting from the combination.or composition of pieces of
the simple bodies. Now the ‘nature’ of a ‘simple’ natural
body is expressed in a ‘simple’ motion. A simple motion is
either rectilinear (‘up’ or ‘down’, i.e. from the centre towards
the periphery of the universe, or vice versa) or circular. And
Aristotle recognizes five simple natural bodies as composing
the physical universe ; viz. the Aether, whose ‘nature’ it is to
move eternally in a circle, and Earth, Air, Fire, and Water
whose ‘natures’ are expressed in rectilinear motion.’ Earth,
Air, Fire, and Water are concrete of form and matter (for
they are informations of wpérn bAn), and they together com-
pose the ‘Lower Cosmos’ or the ‘sublunary sphere ’—i. e.
that part of the physical universe which extends from the
earth to the region immediately below the moon. Earth
inherently gravitates towards the centre of the universe, and
at the centre it is ‘by nature’ at rest. It isthus the nature of
Earth to ‘underlie’ all other bodies; and it is therefore
absolutely heavy, and forms the lowest stratum. Water
inherently moves towards a region (or constitutes a stratum)
immediately encircling the Earth; and is therefore light
relatively to Earth, and heavy relatively to Air and Fire.
Air ‘by nature’ moves up towards a region (or constitutes
a stratum) immediately encircling the Water ; and is therefore
heavy relatively to Fire, but light relatively to Water and
Earth. And Fire is absolutely light: for it is its ‘nature’ to
rise above the other three, to ‘float on their surface’, and thus
to constitute the uppermost stratum of the Lower Cosmos.°

1 They are dra oapara, though they are ovvberor ovoia, i. e. concrete
of form and matter: cf. e.g. below, * 22» 1-2.

2 Cf. de Caelo 26814—269°9. Since there are ¢hree ‘simple’
motions (from the centre, to the centre, and round the centre),
Aristotle sometimes speaks of ¢iree simple bodies :—viz. (i) the Aether,
which is eternally revolving and constitutes the outermost shell of the
physical universe, (ii) Earth, which gravitates towards, and rests at,
the centre, and (iii) the ‘intermediate body’, which moves from the
centre towards the periphery and includes the three s¢vafa, Water, Air,
and Fire. Cf. de Caelo 270 26-31, 277” 12-17, 298» 6-8.

5 Cf. de Caelo 269” 20-29, 308% 14-33, 311% 15ff. This rough

\

INTRODUCTION | XXXIli

The remainder of the physical universe consists of the
fifth simple body, the Aether. It constitutes the whole of
the Upper Cosmos—i.e. the outermost shell of the heavens
(the wp@ros odpavés) and the stars which are set in it, and
the planetary spheres together with the planets which they
carry. Since its motion is circular, and neither ‘up’ nor

‘down’, it is neither light nor heavy. It is unchangeable,

ungenerated and imperishable, and in general contrasted in
all its properties with the other four simple bodies.'. Many
passages in the de Cae/o are devoted to the study of this elusive
substance, which is in its own way as full of contradictions as
the ‘Ether’ of modern physical science. We are, in fact,
confronted here with one of the most obscure features in
Aristotle’s natural philosophy.? The Aether, the stars, and
the planets, although ‘divine’ or ‘heavenly’ bodies, are yet
included in the province of gvaixy : and Aristotle undoubtedly
regards them as in some sense dvaixa cdépuara. The stars
and planets are perceptible substances, and ‘all perceptible
substances have matter’. They must, indeed, gua percep-
tible be concrete of form and matter: for perception is the
presence, in the soul of the percipient, of the form abstracted
from the matter of the perceptible thing.* Are we then to
regard the Aether as the ‘matter’ of the stars and planets,
and the Intelligences, which initiate and control the motions
of the spheres,’ as the souls informing their aetherial bodies ?
But the Aether itself is a ‘simple’ zatural body: hence it
must be concrete of form and matter, and ought to be
perceptible. And if it is the ‘matter’ of the stars and planets,
it is their proximate matter, itself the information of a more
primary matter; just as Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, though
the proximate. materials of the compound bodies, are them-
selves informations of rpérn bAn.

sketch of the constitution of the Lower Cosmos is filled in, and to some
extent modified, below: cf., in the meantime, * 22> 2-3, * 2326-8.

1 Cf. e.g. de Caelo 269» 29—270° 35.

2 Cf. also above, p. xix, note 3, and p. xxii, note I.

8 Metaph. 1042* 25.

* Cf. de Anima 424" 17-24, 431° 20—432? 3.

o Cf, e.g, Metaph. 10732 14-3, de Caelo 292° 18 ff.

2254 c

XXXIV INTRODUCTION

It is equally clear, from another consideration, that the
Aether, the stars, and the planets must all involve ‘ matter’ of
some kind. For though they are eternal and unchangeable,
they all are in ceaseless motion: and motion involves matter
in the moving thing. For the moving thing occupies succes-
sively, and not simultaneously, the different points on. its
path. It is mow actually here and only potentially there: and
now actually ¢here, no longer actually here, and only poten-
tially at a third point. Accordingly Aristotle ascribes to the
heavenly bodies—and his argument applies to the Aether as
well as to the stars and planets'—a bAn mé0ev zroi (or a An
Tom.ky), though he: denies of them #A7 in any other sense.
Clearly they cannot contain the matter which is involved in
the perishable and changing things, the &An yevynri Kal
p0apry or the matter of avénous or of dAAolwors : for, if they
did, they would themselves be subject to yéveous and POopdé,
to ab’fnois and POio1s, and to dAXoiwors.’

It is tempting to connect the An 7édOev zrot with the An
vontn which is the ‘matter’ of the mathematical planes and
solids, i.e. with the empty extensity which may be informed
e.g. by circularity to constitute ¢his or that geometrical circle.’
If so, then the Aether is a otvOeros ovoia (and thus a proper
object of @vaixy) gua concrete of vonr? An and mathematical
form : and it is ‘perceptible’ only in the sense in which ¢hes
or that geometrical circle or sphere is ‘perceptible’, viz.
intuitable, imaginable, ‘perceptible’ to the mind’s eye, an
object of vénots and not of aicOnors.*

The stars and planets, it would seem, are analogous to the

1 It is primarily the aetherial spheres which ‘move , carrying
the stars and planets round in their revolutions: cf. e.g. de Caelo
289? 30 ff.

2 Cf. Metaph. 1042%25 — 7, 1050 16-28, 1069 24-26.

5 We cannot identify thn wd0ev rot with the vAn of the geometrical
planes and solids. For the latter are devoid of motion, whilst the vAn
m7é0ev moi is primarily intended to account for the motion which
characterizes the Aether and the heavenly bodies. Still we may
perhaps suppose that the ‘stuff’, which is informed as these moving
spheres, is (if we disregard its potentiality for motion) the same as
the vont? vAn involved in ¢#2s or chat circle or sphere.

* Cf. e.g. Metaph. 1036* 2-12, 1036” 32—1037* 5.

INTRODUCTION XXXV

living things of the sublunary sphere. They are pieces of
aetherial stuff besouled by an Intelligence which initiates
and controls the motions of their spheres. The Aether is thus
their ‘matter’ in a sense remotely analogous to that in which
pieces of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water are the ‘matter’ of the
perishable living things. The Aether itself is an information
of An 76Oev moi, a substance concrete of form and matter,
and thus a puoikov oépa. Its ddous is an inherent tendency
to revolve ; and, in obeying the initiation of the Intelligence,
its devolution | is both divinely inspired and ‘natural’. We do
not ‘see’ the Aether, except in the sense in which we ‘see ’—
i.e. imaginatively visualize—the geometrical planes and solids.
We suppose ourselves to see the stars and planets; but we
do. not see them as they really are, i.e. we do not see
aetherial stuff alive with besouling Intelligence. We see
moving solids, solids with such and such shapes and orbits ;
and we also see (and ascribe to the moving solids) the flames,
which the revolving aetherial spheres cause by friction in the
immediately subjacent stratum.

If this is Aristotle’s doctrine, it is difficult to see why the
aetherial spheres, and the bodies they contain, should fall
within the province of @vovxy at all. For—apart from the
Intelligences besouling them—they are ‘concrete of form and
matter’ and ‘perceptible’ only in the sense in which the .
mathematical things are so. Yet Aristotle insists that the
aetherial spheres,the stars,and the planetsare not ‘ adjectivals’,
but substances,’ and substances in a very special sense. For
each of them is the unique singular representative of a species,
i.e. is both an @ropoy eidos and an actually-existent singular.
Hence they are ‘eternal substances’ and yet ‘perceptible’,
timelessly-actual species, sole individuals in which the type is
precisely and completely fulfilled. Here—and here alone—
the subjects of demonstrative science are ‘substances’ both

1 Cf. de Caelo 289* 19-35, where Aristotle ascribes the apparent light
and heat of the stars and planets to this cause. There is a more exact
_ statement of this curious theory in Meteor. A. 3, where, however,
Aristotle is referring only to the heat, and primarily to the heat of the
sun, Cf. also. * 22> 2-3.

* Cf. also above, p. xix, note 3.

Xxxvi INTRODUCTION

universal and sheerly singular. The subject, e.g., of which
‘eclipse’ is demonstrated, is he moon: and ¢he moon is
identically also thts moon.

§ 11. Next to the de Caelo in the systematic order, if not
also in the order of writing,? comes the present treatise. The
maé0n here primarily in question are yéveois and Oopd.
Aristotle distinguishes them from the other forms of change
(adAolwois, av~nois and POio1s).which occur in the natural
bodies of the Lower’-Cosmos, and demonstrates their
‘inherence’ in their ‘proper subject’. But what is this
proper subject? What is the minor term of which yéveous
and @@opé are demonstrated ? - |

Allthe natural bodies of the Lower Cosmos are yevynra kal
pOaprdé, and yéveors and POopé are therefore propria (or a
proprium) of them all. The proper or commensurate subject,
of which these 7é@y are demonstrated, must accordingly be
taken to include all the natural bodies in the sublunary
sphere. And Aristotle does in fact treat in full of the yéveous
and $@opé of the ‘simple’ natural bodies (Earth, Air, Fire,
and Water), and refers, though only incidentally, to the
yéveois and POopé of the most complex of, the natural.
bodies, i.e. to the birth and death of the living things.’

Nevertheless, if we look more closely at the contents of the -
treatise, we shall find that Aristotle is primarily concerned
with the yéveovs and Oopé of the éporowepH. These are the
first, or most rudimentary, compound natural bodies, resul-
tants of the combination (yigis) of pieces of Earth, Air, Fire,
and Water.‘ And Aristotle explains the yéveous and #0opé
of the ‘simple’ bodies because they are the proximate
material constituents of the dorouepy, and because their
combination (which produces -the ojolopepy) necessarily
implies their yéveo.s and @@opdé. Aristotle’s references to the

’ Cf. Post. Anal. 74° 7-8, * 16-17, * 33-34. Aristotle’s illustrations
are fictitious ones, drawn from plane geometry; but his doctrine
applies, without any fiction, to astronomical demonstrations, if my
account of his astronomical views is correct.

There is an interesting discussion of the Aether in Zabarella’s De
Natura Celi.
* Cf. below, * 1471. 3 Cf. below, e. g. * 28> 32-33.
* Cf. below, e.g. * 14% 19. é

INTRODUCTION XXXVil

yéveows and POopé of the living things are quite general and
vague. There is no discussion of these ré0n qua distinctive
of the €uyvyxa, no treatment of the birth and death which are
the ‘coming-to-be’ and the ‘ passing-away’ of an organic-body-
vitalized-by-soul. The living things, however, in their birth
_ and death share in the yéveois and $Oopdé of the 6MoLopeph :
for the c@pa euuxor is a cGpa dpyavikéy, and every épyavoy
is a cvvOecrs of Gpuoroueph.' Hence, to this limited extent,
Aristotle’s treatment, though primarily directed’ to elucidate
the yéveois and $Oopé of the épuoropepy, applies also to the
coming-to-be and passing-away of the éuwuya.?

§ 12. The following brief outline may be of service to the
reader :— |

(i) A. 1-5 (3149 1—g22* 33). The wdé@y which are to be
demonstrated—viz. coming-to-be and passing-away, growth
and diminution, alteration—are distinguished from one another
by precise definitions of the meaning of the terms. Incidentally
(a) the discussion establishes (against the views of some of the
early Greek philosophers) the occurrence of coming-to-be and
passing-away as changes distinct from alteration and again from
the composition-and dtssolution of an aggregative whole: and
(b) pérn vAn is shown to be presupposed as the ground of
yéveois and $Oopd, and of their never-failing alternation in the
Lower Cosmos.

Growth and diminution are fully discussed in chapter 5.
Aristotle restricts the meaning of the terms to growth and
diminution proper, i.e. in the Euypuyxa.

(ii) A. 6-10 (322 1—328> 22), The second part of Aristotle’s
task is to discover and define the causes of coming-to-be and
passing-away, in order that we may be in a position to demon-
strate the ‘inherence’ of these 7é6n in their proper subject

1 Cf, below, e. g. * 21? 17-19, * » 19-22.

2 Cf. Zabarella, De nat. sc. constitutione, pp. 56-61. His view is
summarized thus (p. 61 C, D): ‘In libris...de generatione dicimus
agi et de caduco corpore generaliter, et de misto generaliter, quia
nullus est alius liber naturalis, in quo vel de hoc vel de illo agatur ;
sed hoc eo modo, quem declaravimus, intelligendum est, ut generatio
ita in rebus inesse cognoscatur, ut revera inest, misto ut subiecto
praecipuo, elementis ut principiis, corpori autem caduco ut subiecto
adaequato,’ etc.

XXXVill INTRODUCTION

and thus to formulate their adequate scientific definitions."
Now Earth, Air, Fire, and Water are the proximate matter
(the material constituents) of the duocoepy, and thus mediately
the matter of all the complex natural bodies which come-to-
be: and they constitute the éuoloyeph by combination (pigs).
Combination implies Action and Passion (zroveiv kai maoyevv),
and Action and Passion imply Contact (a7). Hence
Aristotle discusses, explains, and defines a7 (A. 6), trovetv—
madoxew (A. 7-9), and pigis (A. 10).

(iii) B. 1-8 (328> 26—335'23). These chapters contain a
thorough and. exhaustive investigation. of the so-called
‘elements’ (Earth, Air, Fire, and Water) as the material
constituents of the compound natural bodies, and of those
reciprocal transformations of the ‘elements’ which are
necessarily implied in their combination to form the opovo-
peEpn.

(iv) B. 9-11 (335°24—338>19). These chapters contain -
(a) a brief discussion of the material and formal causes ot
coming-to-be (B. 9) ; (b) a short account of the final cause, and
an elaborate account of the efficient cause, together with an
explanation of the ‘continuity’ of coming-to-be (B. 10); (c)
a proof that any continuous coming-to-be which is cyclical _
(i.e. any sequence of events which is unbroken and returns
upon itself) exhibits genuine, as well as conditional, necessity.

' Cf. above, § 9.

-APIZSTOTEAOY>
WEPI TENESEQ> KAI ®OOPA>

ete

SIGLA

E = cod. Parisiensis Regius 1853

E? = quae in eodem codice, manu tamen recentiore addita vel correcta,
leguntur

J = cod. Vindobonensis, phil. Graec. 100

J? = quae in eodem codice manu recentiore addita a lectionibus libri
L differunt (vide praefationem)

F = cod. Laurentianus 87. 7

F? = quae in eodem codice manu recentiore addita vel correcta com-
memoratione digna videbantur

H = cod. Vaticanus 1027

L = cod. Vaticanus 253

Quinque tantum locis citatur etiam

D> = cod. Ambrosianus F. 113 sup.

= versio Latina commentariis ab Averroe in Aristotelis opera con-
scriptis inclusa et impressa Venetiis anno 1483 ab Andrea
Asulano

,6!,¢¢ Philoponi commentaria, Hieronymi Vitelli studio Berolini
anno 1897 edita, respiciunt. Scilicet @=lectio quae eadem
et in lemmate exhibetur et in commentario tractatur: @!
= lectio quae non nisi in lemmate continetur: #¢ = lectio quae,
quamvis in lemmate non reperiatur, in commentario tamen
citatur vel e commentario colligenda videtur. Denique dissidentia
librorum, quibus Vitelli in constituendo Philoponi textu usus est,
siglis post ®, &!, et &° adiectis interdum notatur. Itaque, exempli
gratia, lectionem Philoponi codicum R et Z auctoritate, invitis
ceteris, in lemmate receptam siglo &! (codd. RZ) significavi.

APISTOTEAOTS
EPI TENEZEQS KAI ®60OPA> A

[epi S€ yevéoews xat pOopas trav boc yiwvouevwr Kal 314%

/
POeipopevov, Opotws Kata mdvtwv, tds Te aitlas d.ape-
Téov Kal Tovs Adyovs adrGy, ert 5& wept adkijoews Kab ad-
howwoews, th Exdrepov, Kal mérEpov Thy aitiy bmodnmréov
civat pivow dddolwoews Kal yevéoews, 7) Xwpls, Somep
di@piotar Kal Tots dvdyacw. Tov wey ody dpxalwy of wey Thy
a /
kahovuerny amdqv yéverw dddolwow eival gacw, of & Ere-
p) ‘4 \ / ‘ v4 X DS d \ a >
pov ddAolwow Kal yeveow. door pev yap év tu rd Tay etvar
\ an
A€yovot Kat mavta e€ évds yevvdor, tovros pev dvdykn
\ / b] / / }." bY ‘4 4 rd
THY yeveolv GdAXAOiwWoLW avat Kal TO Kupiws ylyvdopuevov ad-
Aowotobar door 6€ TAElw THY BAnV Evds TLO€aow, olov ’Eu-
medoxAns Kal “Avafaydpas kal Aevdximmos, rovrois 8& ére-
rs > 4 \ 3 7 ‘\ b] 4 /
pov. kairo. “Avagaydpas ye tiv oikelay mwvnv jyvdnoev—ré-
n c \ 4 \ > , a eh /
yet yotv ws TO ylyverOat Kat amodAvoba Taitov KabéornKe
T@ dAdowodvaba, ToAAG Se A€yer TA oToLXela, KaOdTeEp Kal
ed > Leu X\ \ XX \ XN /
erepol. EpmedoxAjs mev yap Ta wey owpariKa rétrapa,
x \ f Ss can / a \ > , >
Ta O€ TavTa peTa TOV KlivotyTwY &€ Tov apiOudr, *Ava-
Eaydpas 5 admeipa Kal Aevxummos cal Anpdxptros (6 pev
yap Ta Opowomepy orotxeia rTlOnow, ofov dototy odpxa
pvedov Kal Tév dAAwV Gv ExdoT@ TvVaeVLpoY TO pépos eoTiv,
Anpoxpiros b& Kal Aedximmos ex copdrwy ddiaipétwy TaA-

ai de om. E 3 avrav dtopioréov ért F 5 pvow eva L:
> , < , Noa ‘ A ‘
etvat vow eivac E} 6 dtapiora cai Spiora Et pev Thy] per
otv thy E 8-9 Aéyovow eivat EL Q yevv@or] yeyoveva H, et
fecit E pev om. H: pev 6) F 10 adXolwow thy yéveow H

yeyvdpevor kal dAdovotc da F 12 d¢ om. FHL 13 ye om.

H 14 ovv... daddAAvoba in litura add. J, prima tamen
manu «xaitoF ravrdFJL 16 pevypriusom. HL 19 oiov
om. H kal post dcrovy add. HL kal post odpxa add. FHL

20 pvedov kal EvAov kai H kat tov] tav de E €xdoTou
FHLe¢ cvvevipos FL: cvvavupoy post pépos H eoriv]
katnyopeira L, 21 rdddal] ravra EF: haec et alia P

2254 a

-

o

Pai

bo
°

25

314°

an

i fe)

I

or

20

2 IIEPI TENESEQS KAI ®OOPAS A

ha ovykeicOai haci, Tatra 8 amewpa Kat TO TAHOos civa
‘pag *
kal Tas popdds, avra b& mpds atra diadepew rovros e€
év elo. kal O€oe cal rage TovTwv) évavtins yap datvov-
al /
tat A€yovres of mept "Avagaydépay Trois Tept *Epmedoxdéa.
6 pev ydp dnow mip kal Bdwp kal dépa Kat ynv orotxeia
/ \ ¢ vad > a BY \ RS \
Tértapa kal amAG etvat padAov 7 odpka Kat dotody kal
Ta Toladra Tov dpotopepGv: of 6& Tatra pev aTAG kal
oTolxela, ynv 5€ Kal wip Kal Bdwp Kal dépa otvOera—rav-
oneppiay yap eivat TovTwy. Tots pev ovv e& Evds TayTa KaTa-
/ > a“ / \ , \ > XS
okevagovoly avayKaiov AEyew TV yéverww Kal Thy POopav
3 / » By ' XS / \ € - tp. \. \
dddolwow, del yap pévew TO broxeluevov tavTd Kal ev (TO.
d€ ToLodrov GdAoLodc bal papyev): Tots be TA yevn TAElw TroLOd-
ou diadepew THv adAdoOlwow Ths yeverews—ovvidyTwy yap
\ / € ‘4 / \ € / \
kal dtadvopevov x yeveois ovpBatver kal n POopa. 610
A€yet TodTov Tov TpoTOY Kat ’EpmedokdAjs, Stu “pious ovdevds
éoTi... GAAa povon pls Te SuddAAakls Te pryevTwY”. OTL pev
oty oixetos 6.Adyos abrév TH brobéce: otrw pdvar, d7jdov,
kal STi A€yovot TOV TpdTOV TodTOV: dvayKaioyv d€ Kat TovToLs
\ 3 / a / X\ \ / . b) a
TV GhAolwow eivar pev TL hava, Tapa THY yeveow, adv-
vaTov wévTOL KaTa Ta bm exelvwy eyopeva. Totro 8 Sri
/ b] an Ce A a ¢ x can > A
éeyouev OpOGs, padioy ovvideiy. BoTEP yap OpGpEV NpEov-
ons Ths ovolas év avrh peraBodny Kara péyeOos, Thy Ka-
/
Aovpevnv avggow kal POicw, otrw Kal ddAolwow: od pry
GAN e€ Gv A€yovow ot mAclovs apxas TowodvTes -pwias ddv-
vatov adAowicba. Ta yap Ta0n, Kal’ & dhapev TodTO cUp-
Baivew, diapopai trav oro.xelwy ciciv, \éyw 8 otov Oepyov
wWoxpov, AevKov pedav, Enpov typdv, padrakov oKAnpov Kal
as of a
TOV GAwv Exactov, Somep Kal pynolv "EymedoxAys “‘ HéAvov
pev evkov dpav kat Oepudv amavtn, dyBpov 8 év Tacw

@ 22 gyno L eivat post popdas F 23 mpos avra FH
dtadepe F 24 yap] dé FHL! 25 mepi rov Avaéaydpav F

26° 6] of FT gaa T orotxeia eivar F 27 Térrapa om. sed
A supra lin. add. J padXor eiva F 28 dpotopep@y| pepav F :
similium partium T 29 yy... vdap] wip dé Kal Vdwp E} kal
post mip om. F b 3 peve J (sed post pever erasum aliquid) et &},
Bonitz 4 d€priusom.E = 5 rv yéveow ris addd\otwoeas fecit E
7 héyet kal rodrov L 8 re kai dtadAakis te L get 11 hava J

10 xat Gre] dit kai E Il te] rou F 12 tm’ éxeivoy fecit E
16 mowvvra. LL ~=—19 Aevkdv| kai H— okAnpdoy padaxdyv EL ~— 20 kal
gyno] dpyoi cai F 21 épay] 6pa EL

I. 314% 22.— 315% 22 Se

dvopdevta Te pryahéov te” (Spotws 8% diopiCer Kal emi rev
AounGv) dor’ el pip dvvardv éx wupds. ylvecOar Bdwp pnd? e€
Hdaros yiv, ovd’ €x AevKod pédAav Lorar ovdev odd’ ex paraxod
oxdnpdv (6 8 abros Adyos Kat wepl rSv adAwr), Tobro 8 Fv 25
ddAolwois. 1 Kal pavepoy Oru play det rots évavrlows Sro-
Oeréov tAnv, dv te peraBddrAAn Kara tdénov, dv Te Kar’
avfnow Kal pOiow, av te Kat’ dddAolwow. err 8 Spolws

sige saesaie eivat tovro Kal ddAdolwow: etre aad drdotwais
€oTl, Kal TO UroKkeluevoy ev arotxetoy Kal pola mdvrwv An 3158
Tov éxdvTwv eis GAAnAa peTaBodAjv, Kdv ed Td Umoxeluevor
€v, €oTw dAdoiwots. ~EpredoxAjs pev odv ouxev évavria dé-
yew kal mpos Ta awopeva kal pds adrov airdés. dua pev
yap ob dnow Erepov e& Er€pov yiverOar tGv crotyelwy oddey,
GANG TaAAQ Tavra ex TovTwv, dua 8 Gray els ev ovva-

on

f \ e 4 S a / 3 AS fee /
yayn tiv anacay piow TAHv Tod velKous, éx Tob évds yt-
yvecOa Tadw Exaotov: dar’ é€ évds Twos dhaAov Sri diaopais

/
ToL XwplCouevwvy Kal Tabeow eyevero TO pev Hdwp TO be

na / / \ XN isd \ \ / AS
mp, Ka0amep Acyer Tov pev HALov AevKov Kal Oepudv, THY 10

“ \ \ , a
d€ yiv Bapd Kat oxAnpdv. adatpovpéevwv ody TovTwY Tov d.a-

n or -& 4.4 > \ , i ~ € >) /
opav (eiol yap aaiperal yevdouevai ye) dSHArov ws avayky
yiyverOar Kat ynv @€ Bdaros kal Bdwp ex yijs, dpolws be
kal Tov GAAwy ExaoTov, ob Tore pdvov GAA Kal vov, peETa-

r a '

Baddovta ye tots mabeow. Lor. 8 e& dv elpnxe dvvdueva 15
TpocyiwerBar Kai xwpiferdar mddw, dAAws Te Kal paxo-

, n n
pevay adAndAois ETL TOD velkovs Kal THs giAlas, didTEp Kal

ij b ¢ \ 3 / > X \ a ae 5 a \
tore @& évos eyevvnOnoav—ov yap 5) mip ye Kal yh Kal
tdwp dvra ev qv 7d Tav. Gdndov b& Kal. mérepov ap-

n / x a al
xiv avt@ Oeréov Td ev 7) Ta TOAAG, A€yw Se Top Kal yHV 20
kal Ta ovoTOLya TOUTWY. yey yap ws An bd ef
x - Mev yap ws tAn broKerra, é

b \ \ / 7. A” \ ~ \

ov peraBddrdovra bia THY Kivnow ylvovta yh Kal mop, TO

b 22 Svopderrd FJ et, ut videtur, E*: (opdevra HL: yroddevra
E? emt E} (ut videtur) et L: mepi E*F HJ 23 “yever Gan EL ;
26 dhRoiwow E, sed correxit ali ) EHL#! dei... vroderéor|

dmoberéov elvat Tots evaytiows H: aet évrious dmoberéov E 27-28 ap re
kat avénow kat pobiow om. E a@l pian mavtoay FL = 4 €avréy F
avros om. E 12 yyvdpevai E @s om. E dvaykatoy H

16 mporyeveoOal 18 yeom. Fo! 19 vdwp ér dvra Bekker: er: om.
codd. omnes, #! et r. Lafe lin. (sub vdwp) incerta quaedam habet H
20 a’rav HL: abvra fecit F ra ToAAG f) TO ev F kat om. F
22 yiveraaF =p Kai yn FL: yi xaird vdwp E: ignis et terra et aqua Tr

Gee

4 MEP] TENESEQS KAI ®OOPAS A

tal an /
év oroixeiov: 7 dé TodTo pev ek ovvdecews ylyverar ovvidvTwV

éxeivwn, exeiva 8 ex dSuadvoews, oToiyverwdéoTepa exeiva Kal
a5 Mporepa THY pvow.
"Odws te 8) mept yeveoews Kai Oopas Ths amdjs 2
/ , x 3 x \ nn \ \ XS
Aexréov, TéTEpoy oTw 7) OVK oT. Kal TOS EoTL, Kal T meEpl Tas
dddas xKwioest, olov mept advfjyoews Kal dddoiwoews.
/ /
TlAdrwv pev otv pdvoy Tmept yevérems eoxeWato kal
vad cal , /
30 POopas, Stws tmdpxer Tois Tpaypyact, Kal epi yeverews
> / 2 > a a , a S / a 2 ao Kn
ov maons GAAG THs TOV aTOLXELwWY, TOS SE TapKEs 7 OOTA 7
na n / Ig / » ION \ = ,
Tov GAAwY TL TOV TOLOVTWY, OVdEV* ETL OVE TEPL GAAOLOTEWS
ovde Tept avénoews, Tiva Tpdtov bmdpxovot Tois Tpdypacwy.
dAws S& Tapa Ta emiTOATS TeEpt oddevds oddels emeoTHTEV Ew
/ od 2 a \ +4 / A
35 Anpoxpitov: otros & €ouke pev Tept andvtwv dpovricar, 7d
an n ,
315° d¢ €v TG THs Siapepew. ovTE yap TEpt adfjoews ovdels oddeY
diudpivev, BoTep A€youev, G TL pH Kav 6 TvXa@v eElmever,
ie , > a € "4 cal yX\ ca) nee 8
Or. Tpooidvros avédvovrat TO spol (mGs Se Tooro, odKért),
ovdé wept pi€ews, ovde TEpt TGV GAAwY os cimety OvdEeVds, oloV
an n XK n cr
5 TOO To“eiv 7) TOU Tacyxel, Tiva TpdOTOY TO peVv ToLeL TO SE
f DS bs / , S \ ,
Taoxel Tas dvoikas Tounoerts. Anpoxpitros d€ Kat Aevkir-
Tos ‘ToWjoavTes TA oXHpaTa THY adAolwow Kal THY yEveowY
€x TovTwy Toodot, diakpioer pev Kal ovyKploer yeverw Kal
pOopav, rager d€ Kal Oéoer AdAoiwow. “émel 8 G@ovTo Ta-
AnOes ev TO alverOa, éevaytia 5& Kat Ame—pa Ta awd-
vd ; a
peva, TA oxnpata aneipa enolnoay,, woTe Tais peraBo-

I

oO

Aais To’ ovyKemevov TO adtd évaytiov doxety GAM Kal dAdo,
kal petakweicOar puKpod eupryvyyevov Kal bAws Erepor

/ ” es" > cal > n \ /
paiverOar évds peraxwnbévros—éx Tov abtav yap Tpay@dia
15 kal K@po@dia ylverat ypappatwy. eémel O& SoKet oyeddv

& 23 yiyvovrraaE 24 orotxe@déorepa ra térrapa éxeiva F §=27-28 ras
ras xvynoes H]L®: post adras add. dwdas E et (supra lin.) F:
T@v Gov Kwnoewv D?:; de aliis simplicibus motibus T: ray d\A@v
dmda@v kwyoewv Bekker: trys G\Ans kwyoews fort.legendum 28 oiov
supra lin, add. J: ofov cai E 29 povov om. FH yevéoews Kal
pbopas éoxéyraro L 30 nas HJ 31 Tay TavTev orotyeiov F

32 ovdev] ovdayas H ovde om. E: otre d¢ F: ore L Tept
av&noews ore a\Nowwoews E, sed ore ex ovde fecit 33 otre FL

vmdpkovor E} 35 & Eorxe] de Soxei H b 1 dtadhepa FHL
ovdev] o0S€ H™ 2 diapixev E 6 py tuxav E: py supra lin. add. J

eirouev EFHL 5 hl «kai E rovom. F 12 doke E kai
a@A@ om. L 13 eyywopévou F 14 kopo@dia kai tpay@dia F

15 yiverat kai kopodia HJ émet dé] err E mac cxedov FL&!

315% 23 — 2. 316°8 5

a ) = / Teak , \ , .
Taow €repov elvar yeveris Kal GAAolwors, Kal yiverOar pev
kal OelperOar ovyxpivdpeva Kal diaxpwopeva, dddAowdcba
d€ peraBaddAdvTwy TGV TaOnudTwY, TEpl ToiTwY emioTHoacL

/ 4 ca)
Oewpnréov. amoptas yap éxer Tatra cal moAdAds kal edAd-

b] / > /

yous. «i wey yap €oTL ovyKpiois H yéveots, TOAAA GdvvaTa 20

/ e 2 x s s , ee 2 \ \ b ¥
oupBaiver: eiot 6 av Adyou Erepor dvayxactikol Kal ovK e€b-

>

Topo. Siadvew ws ovK évdéxerar Gddws eyew: etre ph eori

, e , \ wo ? ” / x 5) /

oVYKplols 1 YEVETLS, 1) OAWS OUVK EoTL yEveois 7 AAdOlwors,
x an a :
i Kal todro dvaddoar xadenov dv Tewparéov. adpyn de
/ , a A
_ TOUT@Y TaYTWY, TOTEpOY otTw yiverar Kal GAAoLOdTaL Kal ad- 25 |
\ =,
€dvera. Ta dvta Kal tavavtla Totros mdoxel, Tov TpdTwV

¢€ 4 06 40 / bE) In/ DI / 2 4

vTapxXovTwv peyeCov ad.arpeTov, 7 ovdev EaTi péyeOos dd.ai-
/ fal an

petov* Suadeper yap totro mAcioTov. Kal madrw ef peyéOn,

. e A n

morepov, @s Anpdxpiros Kai Aevximmos, somata tadr

b) , oof 2 ca / pe J a \ 4 og MN
eotiv, wonep Ev TO Tisai énimeda; Totro pev ovv avrd, 30

BA
kadatep Kal év GAdAows elpyxapev, Groyov péxp. emumédwv

an \ a

diadtoa 610 madAdov evAoyov oopara elvar ddialpera,
GAAG Kal ravra modAAnY exer GAoylay. duws bS& Tovrors

/ a ‘
d\Nolwow Kal yeveow evdéxerar Toreiv, Kabdrep elpyrat,
TpoTh Kal diadcyh peraxwotvra TO avTo Kal Tals Tov oXN- 35
parie buapopats, Omep tovet Anyodxpitos (810 Kal Xpouiiy 316"
ov now tat-~-1pomfh yap xperpeas tecrOas), tots 0° els éni-
meda diaipodow ovKeTi: ovdey yap yivera TARY oTEpEd ovVTI-
Jepevwv, TA00s yap odd’ eyxeipodor yevvay ovdev e& adrar.

¥ N a 29 , a: , .
atrioy 6€ Tod én EXatrov dSvvacbar TA Sporoyovpeva ovVvOpar 5
id b) lA \ 24 3 lA a pb] a a
n amepiar 610 door év@KyKact paddAov ev Tois dvorkois,
MaANov dtvavrat troriWecOa. Tovatras dpyas at em odd
dvvavra ovvetpew, of & ex TOV TOAAGY Adywv AOEedpyToL

b 16 yéveow kat dddoiwow F kat yiveo Oat ner] yiverOat os yap
FHJ 18 emiarioat J 19 yap om. J & ad] & ody J
érepot Adyot HJ kal ovKk eUzropot Seahvew post 22 eis 1 23 éort|
éora J 7 sec.| kai E 24 }]) & FLT év om. ET: 6 H
25 andvrev FL ~— ov tw] dpa H 29 mérepor | mpotepoyv Es ravr’
eoriv om. H 30 airs om. L 31 katom.F = ddoyor] a dromov F

33 Opes] dpolws EJ] roiroy F: etexhisl 34 xaddmep eipnrac
om.EL 35 diadnyn7 EJLO*. Cf. etiam infra 32718 p. Td avrd]
transmutante idolum TI . al xpoujy HJ, sed vide Diels, Vor-
sokratiker, p. 71 5 2 paow F 3 owt Bepevov Kata m)aros L, et
in marg. F 4 eyx@pototL 6 cuvexnkaot LL = 7 ras To.avras F
ai om. E!: ais E*F: utramque lectionem agnovit ® emit om. F

8 divarai J Adywv Torey J Tokay om. &!: d\dkov H

6 HEP] TENESEQS KAI ®OOPAS A

Tv tmapxdvTwy dvtTes, Tpds GAlya BAE€WavTes, atodalvor-
en > + <a 35 , ” af ¢
10 Tat paov. dard adv tis Kal €x TovTwy doov diadepovew ot
gvotkds Kat AoytKGs. cxoTobvress TEpl yap Tod Aroua civat
= 7
peyeOn of pev ghacw Gri aitd Td tplywvov ToAAG oral,
Anpéxpitos 8 av gaveln oixelous Kat gvawkois Adyous Te-
“ “ > A / oo OM wy ‘ >)
metcOa. Odydrov 8 €ora 0 A€youev Tpoiodow. exer yap aTo-
4 ¥ 4 ny S \ / f
15 play, et tis Oein oGpd te eivar Kal péyeOos TavTn diaipe-
, \ n , 7 XX 4 v4 \
TOV, Kal TOvTO buvardy. Ti yap éorar brep THY dialpeow d:a-
gebyet; el yap mavrn Svaiperdv, kal rodro dvvardy, Kav
ef ” a / \ b) ‘\ / >
diya in Todro dinpnyévov, xat e pH dpa dSujppyra
a > n / noe a of, 4Ov > n \ >
Kap ei TovTO yevolTo, ovdev av ely advvaTOV. ovKOdY Kal KATA
\ / € 4 \ 4 / > / 4
20 TO METOVY wWoavTws, Kal OAws de, Ef TavTn mTepuKe SvaipEeTor,
dv diaipeOf, oddév Extar advvaroy yeyovds, émel odd dv eis
pupla prpidkis Sinpnyéva (SraipeO)A, oddey advvarov: ‘Kalrot
tows ovdels dv di€Aor. errel Tolvuv TavTN ToLOdTdv éoTL TO Tua,
/
dunpnodw. Ti ody €rrat AouTdv; péyeOos; ov yap oldy Te €orar
/ > / > . / - , P) XS X\ rs
25 yap TL ov Olnpynuevov, av 6€ mavTyn diaiperov. GAAG pH et
2. S n ‘ / r > »¥ h 9
noev EoTrat o@ya pyde peyebos, dialpeois 8 Eorat, 7 Ex
n y ) eee / 2 & , x ION
oTlypav éoTat, kal dpeyeOn e€& Gv obyxkerral, } ovdev Tar-
;
TaTacw, Bore Kav ylvouro ék pndevds Kav ein ovyKelyevor,
\ \ a \ IOs ? 27K , ¢ , \ 23
kal tO Tav dy ovdey GAN 7 Gaiwduevoy. syolws be Kav 7
b n > \ >
30 €K OTLYUOY, OUK ~oTaL ToodY. OmdTE yap HrTovTO Kal ev Hv
/ 6 \ #7 9 LEN > , af \ ad
peyeOos Kal dua yoav, ovdéy erofovy petCov TO wav diawpe-
/ a
Oévros yap els dvo0 Kal tAciw, ovdey EdaTTov ovde petCov TO
Tay Tob TpdTEpoy: wate Kav Tava cvvTEOGoW, Odev TOLTOVEL
f b) \ \ \ 4 f
MéeyeOos. GAdAa pay Kal ef TL dtatpovpevov olovy Exmpiopa
316) yiverar Tod odpatos, Kal otrws ex Tod peyeOovs cGpya TL

&@ 9 dmodaivoyrat] arexpivayto L 10 dc0av E: 6c0@ L II eva
ra peyeOn E 12 dhaowy] od haai J bri] idrt FHJL@'P adr
TO Tp.| Td a’ro Tp. J : Td a’rorpiyevov FHL® 13, oikeiws L: éxXo vel

éexhoy H 14 yap] dé HJ] 15 Gein] djoee E: Ono &! 16 Kai

rovto Suvatév om, E émep| mapa E Stahevyew E 17 kav]
kat E 18 rodro om. &! Touro mavrn Sunpnuevov F dpa Tovto
Sinpyra F 19 ei om. H yevnra FH 20 ro om. E, et

(exceptis codd. GT) 21 dv prius] ¢ay @°: kav FL SiapeOcin F
eigom. EF*: @ J 22 pvpia om. EJ, et erasit F? suprascr. «is
Sinpnpeva (d.aipe6)n scripsi: Sipnuéva 7 EHJL: ein Siypnpéva ein F
(priore tamen «in eraso, et secundo «ty rc. manu addito) 29 4
om. HJ 7) ¢@ HL 30 €or L hv év peyeOos J: ev peyeOer
(omisso jv) H 32. 4 Kai Bb! meiovs EF 33 mporépov F

_tovovo. F b I rov post ék om, F

2. 316% 9 — 316) 30 1

b) / ¢ » i .' 4 2 lal \ n , > \ \

ATEPXETAL, O aUTOS Adyos* ExElvo yap THs diatperdv; Ef BE pr)
a > > 4 x ) al

gGya addN cidds TL. xwpiordv 7 ma0os anpdOer, Kal Lore

/ \ x c \ \ a ” > ‘

TO peyeOos oTiypal m adal Todt Tabovtoa, Gromov éx pH

n / > ca)
meyeOGv péyeOos civar. ert b€ mov Evovrat, Kal axivyror 7) 5

4 c a c / 2 Yes a n c
Kwovpevar ai otiypal; adn te del pla dvoiy rwav, os
wy \ i \ € \ \ \ / \ ‘
6vTos TWOs Tapa THY adjy Kal THY dialpecw Kal THY oTLy-

/ / / a BS an n

pny. «i 59 Tis Onoerar OTLody 7 OmNALKOVOiY GGyua civar TavTY
diaiperdv, Tadra ovpBaiver. Ere €dv SueAov ovvdG Td

+ BA / a
fbdov 7} Tt GAO, TAaALy ioov TE Kal Ev. ovdKodv obrws éxeL
/ \ a n
dnAovdrt Kav Téyw TO EAov Kal’ briody onyeiov: TavTn dpa
/ / a
Sujpytar dvvdwer. Th ovv EoTL Tapa THY diaiperw; ei yap Kal
4 10 > \ na > n , 4 ,
€oTt TL Ta00s, GAAG TOs els TavTra diadveTaL Kat yiveraL
\ n a

€k TovTwy; 7 TOs xwpiCerar Tadra; dot einep ddvvarov
2 ¢€ a x a > bs / Can: i ,

ef adv 7 oTiypOv civar Ta peyeOn, avayKyn civat copata
5 , \ , > N > N \ a ,
adtatpera Kal peyeOn. ov pnv adda kal Tatra OepeEvois
ovy HrTov ovpBaiver addvata’ EoKeTmTaL 5€ TeEpl at’TaY ev
érépois. GAAd Tadra Telpareoy Avew, 610 wdAW e€ Apyns
\ 2 , , Sy. a of n > Ais) ae
TV amoplay AexTEov. TO wey ov Gray copa aicOyTov «iva

X > ¢ n ~ ‘ P) / ION LA
Staiperov Kad oriody onpetoy Kat adiaiperovy ovdev aTo--

2 \ BS bs Py lA TO 3° é r / € d & \
Tov" TO pev yap dvuvapel, TO vredexela vnapget. TO
? oe ed / \ / ay ie UA , x
& evar dua mavrn dvaiperov dvvdwer addvaroy dderev dv

S > \ t a , > Pi e his
evar. ei yap duvatdv, Kay yévoito (odvx woTe dpa civar
3 z P) / \ / P) =
Gpow eévredexeia, adiatperov Kal dinpnyevov, adda Sunpy-
/ > ¢ ny lal ION 5 bi , \ >
pevov Kal? driody onpetor): \ovdev dpa éorat ourov, Kal els

a N

doopatov epOappevoy TO cGpa, kal yiyvorro 8 av amddw
+ b) an ks b) 2 , \ an a 4
HTOL ek oTLypav 7) SAws €€ ovdevds. Kal TovTO TGs dvvarov;
P) bs \ a > KN ’ 2, /
GAAG pny OTe ye Siaipeirar eis KwploTa Kal Gel els eAaTTH

+
peyéOn Kal els améxovta kal Kexwpiopeva, pavepov. ovTeE

8) Kara pépos Siaupodyts ein Av Ameipos H Optus, ovre dpa :

b2 yap om. EHJL = 3 ov xywpuordr et ywpiordy agn. ®: ov supra
lin. add. J? post wados add. 6 H et in marg. FJ? 4 oreypai dv i J
post dromov add. pev ro HJ] = ex pn] pn ek H 6 two F: twor,

25

suprascr. ou, J 8 ériovy Onceraa FL fom. EL GmnAtkov E -

Q mayra taita L éay] av E ovvbe fecit E 10 4] et J
Il kdvtéeywom. E 113 €orar H 15 adpov 7 om. F 16 ov
piv ddd] AAG py FHJLO! — Geevors odx Hrrovom.E 17 advvarov
FL 19 Yekréov tiv dropiav H = 21: post duvduet add. duarperov EL

22 Suvdper fort. eiiciendum 23 «ivat dua F 24 évredexeia
dupo FL 25 Surdper kad? F? 26 yiyrorro EFJL: yivoro H:

yevorro Bekker 27 €k Toy oTiypav E 28 dvaipetrac aei

eis H

317°

or

Io

15

20

8 IMEPI TENESEQS KAI ®OOPAS A ;

lan a lal /
oldv te diapeOjvar xara wav onpelov (od yap dvvardr),
> > / > / EA BA b] / " ‘6
GAAG péexpt Tov' avdykn Gpa arowa evuTapxew peyeOn
/ DS €
adpara, dAAws te Kal elmep Eorar yeéveois Kal Oopa 7
/ n
pev diaxpioer 7) 5€ ovyKpicer. 6 pev ody dvayKacew doxov
, ep / BA e 4 3 ied Ss / ~
Adyos eivat peyeOn Growa ovrds é€orivs Ori b€ AavOaver Tapa-
f Nig / PI) \ DS > 7]
AoyiCopevos, Kal Hl] AavOavet, A€ywpev. EEL YAP OVK EoTL
a 4 \
OTLYMA OTLypHS exowevn, TO TavTn Elva SiaipeTov EoTL peV
€ ¢ / “ / y ¢ Le y+ a9) of a
os UTapxe Tols peyeOeow, EoTtt 6 ws ov. SoKEel O, Tay TovTO
lal n | n
TeOh, Kal danody Kal mdvTn oTtypny eivat, Gor dvayKaiov
elvat diaypeOjvar To péyeOos eis pndev—mdvtn yap eivar
Pern ey By I ded
, o 9 © pA We a S sth Bar, SINE | ¢
oTiypnv, Bote | CE APGv 7H Ek oTtyp@v eivar. TOO EoTW ws
na c /
brdapxet wavTn, Ste pla omnody éor. Kal TacaL ws ExdoTN*
4 XN o > ef “ X > + et oS v4 ’ b)
TAelous 5& pas ovk eloiv (epeEns yap ov« cial), Bor’ ob mavT7y.
/ X ”
el yap Kata pecor d.iatperov, Kal kar’ €xouevny oTtypny EoTat
na x
duarperov: (ovK €or b€,) ov yap oti Ex dpevov onpuElov onpetov 7
an a x ‘
OTLYMH OTLypHs, TOUTO 8 earl dialpeois 7) oVVOECIS. WoT EoTL
kal ovyxpiois kal didKpiots, GAA’ ovr eis Groua kal e&
arouwv (moAAad yap Ta advvata) ovTe otTws Hote TavTH
diafpeow yeverOa (el yap wv exowevn aotiypy oTiypis,
a) a cd 2 > > x ‘, SSx 5 > / \ ,
Toor ay wv), GAN eis puxpa Kal éAdtrw éori, Kal ovyKpl-
ous €€ édartévwv. GAN ody 7 amd Kal Tedela yeveots
/ \ e ad / ‘\ 2. 8
ovykpioet kal diaxploer Hpiotat, os Twées ghacw, tiv 8 ev
n mn nN &
T@ ovvexed petaBodrjy adAdolwow, GAG Toir éorly ev @
opdhrerar mavtas got. yap yeveois GmAnH Kal POopa od
/ \ / > > id > an
gvyKpioe. Kat dwaxploer, GAN’ Gray peraBddrAAn &x ToddE
> , v4 € XN ¥ PJ 4 te) o. \
eis Tode OAov. ot O€ olovTar GAAOlwoWw eEtvat Tacav THY
, , \ S 3 ~s aA €
ToavTyY peTaBornv: TO b& dtadeper. ev yap TO broxet-
/ A / 3 ‘ \ “! \ XS \ X iv4
Mev@ TO pev e€oTL KaTa TOV Adyov, TO SE KaTa THY ANY:

b 31 oldy re] olovrut J ov yap] otk apa E 32 evur. peyebn]
peyeOn tmdpxew OT 33 ara... 34 ovy in litura re.
manu E 34 dvaykdatov F Soxav om. F, post Adyos ponit
Hoe! - & 3 pevom. EJ 5 kai navtn ...8 érnodvy om. L
5 ortypy J, et (ut videtur) F° 6 eva priusom.F 8 indpyn E

10 péowy H kat’ éxopevny fecit E Il Staperdy’ ovk gore dé,
ov yap e coni. T. W. Allen scripsi: S:arperdy’ ody! d€° od yap J : non”
autem possibile ! (unde aAX’ advvaroy conieceris): Scarperdy* od yap
EFHL®® — joriypyortypjsom. ®° 12 roiro] Tro Ef] kai H
13 dtdxpiois Kal ovykpiois EL = 14 ddivata] roma H_— Gore fecit E

15 yelverOar E: yiyeoOarlL 16 dvom.E 17 e&|xaieéH
tehéa J 21 perauBadn ex rowid. EL 22 rdde| Tov todvde E

macay eivaa EL 24 Ta pev H eott TO0€ Kata E

2. 3165 31 — 3. 317618 9

WA S be) 5] / , / / » x
Orav pev oty é€v Tovrows 7 1) pmeTaBodn, yeveois EoTaL 7) 25
; / 74 > > lal / \ \ /
pOopa, oravy 6 &v Tots mabeot Kal Kata cupBeBnKds,
GAAolwors. diaxpwwdpeva S& Kal ovyKpidpeva evpOapra

4 +N \ XX >] 3 ¢€ / fel lad
ylverai—eav pev yap «ls @Adtrw ddria dvaipeOH, Oarrov
\ lod 4 lad
ap ywerat, éav d€ ovyKpLOf, Bpadvrepoy. padrdrov 8 ora.
OjAov ev Tois taTepov: viv d5€ Tocodrov dimploOw, Sti dddva- 30
Tov €ivar THY yeverw ovyKpiow, olay by Tivés haow,
3 Atwpicpéevwv Se TovTwY, TpSTov Oewpnréov moTEpov ort
, ¢€ n \ , x aN In /
TL ywopuevov atrAOs Kal POeipdpevov, 7 Kuplws pev ovdev,
: Pn" > 4 \ v4 / > > / € a
ael & €k Tivos Kat Tl, A€yw 6 oloy Ex KapvovTos tby.ai-
\ / p) ¢€ / x \ 2 / 4
vov kal Kdpvov e& ty.aivoytos, 7) puxpov ex peyddov Kal 35
/ 2 a \ S t a \ , > b
Meya €K plKpov, Kal TaAAa TavTa TovTOY Tov TpoTOV. €t 317
S c nt y / c n 7 / Y J ‘\ yy
yap amA@s EoTar yeveois, GTAGS Gy TL yivotro ex pr dvTos,
@or adnbés av etn A€yew Gru bTapyxer Tiol TO pH Ov: Tis
- 5] a K
pev yap yeveois ek py OvTos TwWds, olov ex pH AEvKOd 7
pH Kadov, 7 6€ GmAn e€ atAGS pH dvTOs. TO 8 AmAGS 5
ToL TO mpOTov onpalver Kal’ Exadotnv KatTynyoplay Tod dvTos,
DN i eae \ ca
7) TO KaOdAOV Kal TO TavTa Tepiexoy. ef pev ov TO TPG-
e \ f :
Tov, ovolas €oTat yeveris ek py ovoiass w@ S€ pq) UTapXeL
an n >
ovota pndé TO Tse, SHAOV ws OVE TGV GAAwY ovdeuia KaTN-

—

a @ \ a *: N
yopltav, otov ovre mow ovTe Toby OvTE TO TOD (xwpLoTa yap 10
na a \ al P] ,
dv ely ta ma0n TSv ovoiGv) «i Se TO pH Ov SAws, aTO-
4 , / (od 3 \ rs / 7,
gacis é€orat xaOddAov mdavTwv, ote ex pndevos avayxn yl-
bd
verOar TO ywwdpevov. TeEpt ev ody ToUTwY év GAXAoLs TE buN-
na a , XS
mépytat Kal dudpiorar Tots Adyous él TAclov, cvvTOpws GE
an \ wy € n
Kal vov Aextéov, St. Tpdmov pev Tia EK pr OVTOS ATAMS 15
\ XS /
ylverar, tpdmov 5& GAAov e€ ovTos dei+ TO yap Svvaper
BA pI 4 N Sa 3) ae A ee A r , b)
dv evredexela 5é jun) Ov avayKn TpovTapxew AEyopuEVvoY ap-
/ 4 X\ 3
ghorépws. 6 d& Kal TovTwY SiwpiopEvwr Exe OavpaoTHy aTo-

@25 pevom. L ovv om, F rouras| tas E éora| éorv
EL 27 ovykp. O€ Kali Suaxp. &! 28 pev om. EJ yap om. F
vdara L, et fort. E? 29 édy de] cai day E 30 Tots eis Pi pe F
diopicbe F 31 thy yéveow eivar E@! = x} om. HJ = 33. J] tO L

34 otoy om. E vytaivovros E 35 Kal kdpvor | i) Kapvov FHJ
b 2 ru om. HJ 3 tTiot om. HJ 4 pi ek Nevkod E 7] jn ex FJ
6 onpaivet] cvpBaiver L 7 TO post kai om. F 8 tmapxn (sed

ne in litura) J 9 room. EFL; sed cf. v. 21 karnyopiar
Karnyopia F 10 ro 700] téros J: locus I: rémor supra lin. adno-
tavit F 13 ctv om. L 17 tmapxev F' 18 Aeyouevwr, super-

posito diopiopevwy, F Oavpaoriy Exe tHv amropiay P

20

2

or

30

35
3182

I

°

10 IIEPL FENESEQS KAI ®@OPAS A

n iad >
plav, madAw emavaroduoctéov, Ts EoTW ATA yéveots, elt
€x Ouvduer dvTos ovoa elre kal mws GrAAws. amopyoere yap
ay tis Gp éotw ovolas yéveois Kal Tod Todde, GAAA fq TOV

cal a an \
Towbdde Kal Tocodde Kal rod (rdov avrov d& TpdtoV Kal Tepl
iy > / / ~ c /
pOopas). ef ydp te yivera, SHrAovy @s Eotar Svvaper Tis
a
ovoia, éevtedcxela 8 ov, e€ js ) yeveris Eorar Kai eis Hv
dvaykn petaBdddew TO POeipdpevov: Térepov otv bmdp&er Te
a \
TovTm Tov GAwy evTed€xela; A€yw 8 olov ap’ Extra. ToToV
x \ BN a Q , , , ed € n X \
ToLov H TOD TO Suvayer povoy TOdE Kat OV, aTA@S SE pI)
/
rode pnd ov; ef yap pydey aAAA TavTa dvvaper, Xwpt-
otdv Te ovpBalve. TO pH ovTws dv Kal éri, 6 padiota do-
, , ¢ a / ye .
Bovpevot dSiereAeoay of Tp@tor iAocodycavtes, TO EK MN-
devds ylverOar mpovmapxovros: ei 5& TO pev elvar TddE TL
x ae 251 8 a ae we a > /
n ovolay ovxy tmdpfe, Trav 8 GdAdAwv TL Tov eipnuevor,
éoral, kabatep elmoper, xwpioTa Ta TAON TOV OvoLGY. Tepi
Te TovTwY ov baov evdéxeTaL TpaypareuTeor, Kal Tis airia
a n /
TOU yeveow del eival, Kal THY anAnvY Kal TiY KaTa peépos.
wy > ; ME a > 7 ‘\ >) X\ S i ah
ovons 8 airlas pias pev SOev tiv dpxjv eival dayev Tis
/ la na : / ,
Kwyoews, plas o& THs bAns, THY Tova’Tny airlay AeKTEor.
e : a ,
Tepl pev yap exelyyns elpntrat Tpdrepov ev Tots TEpL KIVHTEWS
Adyous, Sti earl TO pev axivynroy Tov Gmavta xpévov, TO de
Kwovpevoyv adel: tovtwy S€ Tepl pey THs akwyTov apxns THs
érépas kal mporepas duedciv eater didocodias epyor, Tepi be
Tov dia TO ovvEx@s KwetoOar TaAAQ KiWodvTOS taoTEpoYv aTo-
/ an a
doreov, Ti Tovodroy TOY Kal Exacta AEyopevwy airidy éoTw.
a > ie.”
vov d€ Thy os ev BAns elder TUWEuevny airiay eimwper, dv Hv
a % to \ / > € | Jad X\ , ed S
ael pOopa Kal yeveois ovx trodciner THY diow—fpa yap

b 20 ovca] ovcia H: ovoias L 21 tov postpyom.L 22 rawv-

de] rovoitovde E Kat Tou Tomovde F kat Tov mov FJ de] dy
FHL 23 ecom. E rt] fort. legendum 1éde re 24 ovcia]
otoaJl «6 e&... €otacom.E éoracom.J jfvom. E 25 ro}
rov E 26 roir@] roiro F_ =—s « Aeyw om. E__— off v om. H Toy

i) moody J 27 To] To H povoy] dy FL de] re E 29 Te]
mE py ovras EL®*: ovr wn H: ovros py F J : quod sit (Z. sic)
nonensI érom.E 31 yivesbacom.E tea] rnv J 32 ovcia
EF, sed otciay fecit E tmdpye FL 33 xopiora J 34 mpay-

pareov L 35 elvae post amAnv E al THs Kwhceas eivai
apev F 4 Orde éorw E* snavtraE 98€ om. E, add. supra
lin. Se THS aK ov om. (ut videtur), et dpxns post érépas ponit
E* ras ante érépas om. FJ 6 érépas kai om. L 8 tovwovrey L

Trav om. J

‘

3. 3172 19 — 318P 5 11

a a / dn \ \ n a > /
vy tows TodTo yevoito diAov, Kat Tepi Tod viv amopnbévTos
n a / \ \ an c n rn 4
m@s Tore Set Aeyew Kal wepl Tis andAjs POopas Kal ye-
> ny
véoews. €xet 8 atoplay ixaviy kal ri TO airioy rod cvvel-
\ / 4 \ , > \ ‘ A > /
pew THY yeveow, eltep TO POeipdpevov eis TO pn dv anép-
XS ree f 2 »” bs ‘ x \ ¥
xerat, TO S€ py Ov pndév Eotw (ovre yap Ti obre mov ove
lal \ ‘\ n
moody ovTe Tov TO pr) Ov) elmep ody del TL TGV dvTwY anép-
> / cal
xeTar, Oud th mor ovK dvjAwtar mada Kal dpoddov 7d
lal / > e an
mav, el ye memepacpevoy jv e€ ot yiverar Tav ywopéevear
eo + x N N ‘ 2 > > @ , >
Exactov; ov yap 8 ba TO dmeipov eivar e& od yivera, ovy
€ 4 Foy on NS 25 7 ~ > 7 \ . 29 /
vmodeiner: Tov’To yap advvaToy, KaT évepyeray pev yap ovdev
> / > oe -% \ 4 [v4 + a 4 4,
eotw amepor, duvaye 5 ent tiv dialpeow, dor der Tavrnv
> , ‘ \ ¢€ Ys lal Y 7 A x
elvat povny THY pi) VTOAEiTOVoay TO yiverOai TL dei €Aar-
? a \ a) > o> a 9 9 = X \ \ n
Tov—vov b€ TOUTO Ovy OPGmev. ap ovY bia TO THY TOddE Oo-
oe / a
pay GAdov €ivar yéveow Kal Tijv Tovde yéveow AAdov eivat
a /
p0opay amavotoy avayxatoy civar thy petaBoAnv; Tepl per
ovv Tov yéveorw elvat Kal POopayv dpuotws Tepl Exacroy TOY
»~ / > / oP : ad € x p heme XN ld /
dvTwv, TavTnVv oinréoyv civar TacW ikavyy aitiay, dua Ti b€
more Ta pev amd@s yiverOar A€yerar Kai POelperOar Ta

bs
wre

& ovx amAGs, wdAw oKeTTéov, eimep TO adTd éEoTL yeveEots

‘pev Tovdl POopa S& rovdi, Kal POopa pev Tovdl yéveois dé

rovol’ Cnret ydp twa Todro Adyov. dAé€yopev yap STL POet-
pera vov ams, Kal ov povoy Todt: Kal atrn pev yéve-
ais amAGs, attn Se POopd. Todi 5& yiverar pev Tt, yive-
tar & amAGs ov: apev yap tov pavOdvorta yiverOar pev
émotnpova, yivecOar 8 amdds ov. Kabanep odv TodAAdKLS
duvopiCouev A€yovres Stu Ta pev Tdde TL onpalver Ta 8 ov,
dua Todro cupBatver TO Cyrodvpevor. diaheper yap es & pe-
rapdnret To petaBdddrov, olov tows % pev els Tip ddds
yirenis pep Rat pOopa 8€ Tivos eorw, oloy yijs, H dé
ys yéveois Tis yéveois, yéveris 8 ody AmAGs, POopa 8

ail yévouro tovto F 12 det om. E kal post A€éyerv om. J
14 tH] dei ryv 1 15 pndér] ovdev py Es ovder L 17 dvdd@rat
HJ madat in marg. add. F 18 iv] ” E yiverau Tév om. E

yevdpevov E 22 povnv civac] 26 dpoiwsadei repiF 27 oinréov
ikaviyy maow airiav F 28 heyerat yiyver Oa F kai] ra d€ kat E:

ra Oe 29 amhav E €ort om. L 30 pOopa... yéveots
dé rovdi om. L 32 vov] viv per &! 35° ov. kabarre, | ov ) yap
Kabarep E SiopiCoper qroA\\dkis FHL b 3 70m. E 4 €or
om, Le! 5 tis... pOopal ris yéveois Se ~~ E!; ris yéveots,

pbopa L: yéeveors ris, pOopa &! |

35

318

on

12 ITEP] TENESEQ> KAI ®OOPAS A

a \ A
amd@s, otov mupds—@omep Llappevidns A€yer S00, TO dv
kal TO pa) Ov elvat pdoxwy Tip Kal yay. TO by Tadra
7 Toate érepa vrotiVecOar diadéper ovdev: Tov yap Tpdmov

n p) > > \ € / € » > > \ XN
(yrovpev, GAN’ ov TO bTOKEipevoy. 7 pev ovv eis TO pn

10 Ov AmAGs 6d6s POopa amAq, 7 8 els TO GmAGS dv yeve-
ois amd. ols oly didpiotat, elre Tmupl Kat yh etre GAAows
tiol, TovUTwy ora. TO pev Ov TO Se pH Ov. Eva pev odv Tpd-
mov TovTm dolce. TO ATAGS yiverOar Kal POelpecOar Tod
pa amd@s, GdAdAov be TH TAN dmola Tis dy Fr Hs pev yap

15 MaANov ai diadopal rdde TL onpativovor, paddAoy ovata,
e s , L » @ b) \ S \ : 4
ns 5&€ orépnow, pa Ov—otovy ef TO pev Oeppor Karnyopia
tis kal eldos, » 5& Wrypdrns arépnors, -diapepovor d& yi

\ n vA n n nan X lad C
kal Top TavTats Tais diadopais. doKxet d€ paddAov Tots
a an > na \ \ >’ an f 24 s
ToAAOis TH alcOnTe Kal pn aldOnT@ Siadepew> OTay pev

20 yap eis aic@nryv peraBardrAn tAnv, ylverOal gacw, Srav
0 els adhavn, PbeiperOa. To yap dv Kal To pH dv TO

> / x al \ b] / / v4 \
aicOaverOar Kal TO pH aicOdverOa diopicovow, domep TO
S 3 \ ” \ > / x wy € XX ¥
ev emiotntov ov, TO 8 ayvwotov pi év (Hn yap aicOnors
> / bs z / be > \ n > /
emoThuns exer Svvapw) Kabdarep otv adrol Té aidbdverOat
by cal , \ \ be 4 A \ ~

25 TO Svvacba Kat Hv Kat civar vouiCovow, otrw Kal Ta

, , \ , > / + ole \ /
Tpaypata, TpoToy Twa OiwKovTes TAaANOEs, adTo Se d€E-
yovtes ovK GAnOés. oupBaiver 6) Kara dd€av kal kar
GAnerav GrAAws TO ylverOai Te GAGs Kal TO POelperOar:

n ‘ \ oN \ X\ \ 4 e , J \
meta yap kal dnp Kara pev Thy alcOnow jrrov éotw (810d

30 Kal Ta POeipdweva andGs TH eis Tatra peraBodrf PpOeipe-
cOar dێyovow, yiverOar 8 Grav eis anrov kal els yhv pera-
BddAAn), Kara 8 GAnOevay paddov Tdde TL Kal eldos Tatra

a n an N bo > X\ Te rd lad / \ >
THS ys. TOU MeV OUP Elva THY Mev aTAHV yeverww POopav ov-

b 6 amas] dmAy &! 7 packey eiva F To 87] det by J?: ef
67 vel cidn &! 8 érepa tmoriBer Oat om. ol yap post diadéper
add. E, et supra lin. J" 9 7O dmd@s i) éy J Il yf etre] y7j
7) kal H 13 toute dioicer] dioica € €v ToUT@ F, sed ey supra lin.

addito dmhas te yiverBat EL 14 7H ody] 27 ee F =e roia L
16 js] Ths H «om. EL 17 xairdecidosE 8€ yn yap yi F
18 kat Tavrats HL 20 peraBadn EL 21 70 post kal om. FJ!

22 Kal TO py aicbaver Oa om, E ro om. FLe! aio aves Oa
secundum om. L 25 ro] TOJ ~~ kal ante (jv om. E 27 8] 8)
kai HJ? 28 post dos add. cat HJ? ro ante ddeipeoOa om. EL

29 mvevparu yap Kap E pevom. J 30 ra. om. F 31 pera-
Barn L 32 kar adnOeay dé FHL rd0e Tt paddov F Td0€
om. J 33 thy dmAnv L, spatio post ryv relicto

3. 31856 — 319% 25 13

ody Twos, THY b& POopay Tiv andi yéverw odadv Twos, e€t-
\ lal

pyrat ro alriov (dia yap 7d ri Any diadéepew 7} 7 odolay 35

a x a | ee. a \ X AX \ de , M8 a \

civat 1 TO pa, } TH THY pev padAov Ti dF pH, 7) TS Thy 319%
vey padrdrov alcOyriv elvar tiv bAnv e€ js kat els fv, Thv
d@ Hrrov elvat) Tod b& Ta pev amAds yiverOa Aéyer Oa, Ta
/ , XN lol 3 > / / >

b€ te pdvov, pay TH @€ GAANA@Y yevéoe. Kal” dv elrouev
viv tpdmov (viv pév yap Tocodroy didpicra, rl dy Tore T4-
ons yeverews ovons pOopas addov, Kal dons pOopas ovens

/

ETepov Tos yeverews, OVX dpolws aTodidopev Td yiverOat Kal
TO POelperOat Tots eis GAANAG peTaBddrdAovoww: 7d 8 toreEpor
bY / > a a | x / \ , s bd
eipnuevov ov TovTo dvamopel, GAG Ti ToTE TO pavOdvoy pev od
Aéyerat GmAGs ylvecOar AdAA yiverOar emioTHpov, Td Se 10
pudpevoy ylverOat), ratra S& Siwpicrar rtais Kxarnyoplas.

\ X\ ‘ / / XN >. , \ x ,

Ta pev yap Tode TL onpaiver, Ta dé Toldvde, TA 5é TOTdV"

4

or

doa ody pi ovolavy onpatver, od A€yeTar GmAGs, GAAG TU yl-
bd \ P) aS 4 / > c / ~ x ae
verOat. ov pry addr’ opoiws ev Tact yeveois pev KaTa Ta ev
ay, Tes / / > x ae bs a b) >
TH ETEPG TvoTOLXlg A€EyeTal, oloy ev pev ovoia edv Tip GAN’ 15
> 3N ~ > Ss al a 3N > a ) eo] > is4
ovK €ayv yn, €v SE TH TOL Edy emLoTHUOV GAA’ ovx Grav
> “” \ X » n ~ > c n Vs a. XN
GQVETLOTHMOV. TEPL MEV OUY TOD Ta peV ATAGS yiverOa Ta dE
Me \ [cg \ > ~ > / > “ \ ,
Mn, Kal OAws Kat €v Tats ovoias avrats, elpnrat, kal dudrt
ToD yéveow elvat auvex@s aitia os tAn TO broKelpevor, Sri
\ > > 14 \ € / / »
seraBAntixoy eis Tavavtia Kal éoTw n Oarépov yéveois del 20
emt TOV ovoldy GAAov POopa kal 7 GAAov POopa GAAov yeve-
3 \ \ FEF > “ “ ‘\ 7 / > WV >

ots. aAAad pny ovd amopyjoa det dia Ti yiverar dei amoA-
Avpévav' Ootep yap kal ro POeipecOar amAGs qacw, Srav

rg 3 4 bd \ X\ yy. ¢ / ‘ 7 3
eis avaicOnrov €AOn Kal Td 2) OV, Opmolws Kal TO yiverOat Ex

\ wv 7 ig 3 > / ¥ 9 > + \ “
pay Ovtos daciv, Stray e€ dvaicOyjrov. elt ody dvTos TiWds Tod 25

b 34 ryyv d€...rwosin marg.ponit F ovdravyéveowJ al F
TO un... d€pnom.E repn|rounl thy pev... thy pev in marg.
add. F Thy pev utrumque om, J, sec. om. EH 3 A€eyerOa
om. L ra sec.] ro supra lin. corr. J*?, 7d etiam ©! (codd.
GT) 4 pdévovom.&! 5 viv prius omittend. notat J? 6 otes
pOopas ...7 yeveoewsom. L 8 eis @AAnAaom. E _—Qy ri bn wore F

IO adAd te yiyveoOa in marg. F, Tr 12 ra primum] ro LT
ra sec. et tertium] ro FLT 13 onpaivne in litura J 14 dmaot F

15 érépa ovoro.xeia J: érépa rod kpeirrovos ovorotxia F 16 ovK
prius] odxi E émiaTnpev et Mox avertorjpoy fort. E, sed correxit

18 pn] a7 FHJT kxatanteévom. EF avraisom. EL 19 tov
codd. omnes et T': rovSe Bekker perperam tribuit codd. FHL

20 «ori ante eis habet E 21 a\Xov post 7 om. E 22 dei]
aici JL: ei E: te del F 23 papev E 24 ro ante yiverOa om.
EL €K Tov pr) F

30

319”

om

Io

15

14 TIEPI TENESEQS KAI ®@OOPAS A

é / / 3 \ yy e/ e vd \
dmokeievou elite yin, ylverar ex pun OvTos: Bote dpolws Kal
ylverat ék pn Ovros kal pOelperar eis TO pH ov. elkdtws odv
ovx tbodeime 7) yap yéveois POopa rod pi svTos, H Se
X\ nm ‘ wy P) S fal \ \ xX € fal
pOopa yéveois Tod pu) GvTos. GAAG TodTO TO pr dv aTAGS
[amopnoeré Tis] wérepov Td erepov TOV evayTioy éativ, olov yh
a a BY
kal TO Bapv pr ov, mop S€ Kal Td Kodphov dv, 7H Ov, GAN
b] \ \ o Sat \ N pS ¢/ € a Cpa \ \
éotl kal yh TO ov, TO dé pH Ov BAN H THs yns Kal Tupos
€ ff. \ 4 / Ain f € / ee c x 3 a 7
@oavtws; Kal apd ye €répa Exatépov 7% BAn, 7 ovK ay yl-
voiro @& GAAndwy odd e€ évavtiwy (rodvros yap tmdpxet
> 4 4 a oS > 4 ); by 4 S ¢ € 3 2
ravavtia, mupi, yi, dart, dept); 1 €or. pey ws. H avTn,
by 3. eee A s by ee \ 9-< 7
éort 8 ws Erépa; 6. perv ydp wore Ov trdKerrat, TO add,
\ > => > \ > , \ X\ bd 4 , ae. La)
TO 8 eivau ov TO adro. Tepl pev otv TovTwY emt TOTOUTOY
A
elpnoOw:
Tep 5& yevéoews Kai GAdoWoews A€ywpev Ti diade-
». > 4 / > 4 \ \ >)
povoiww—gayev yap eTepas elvat TavTas Tas peTaPodAas adA-
/ 3 \ be 3 lA eae 4 Ve \ /
Ajnrwy. ered) ody éort TL TO bToKElpevoy Kal Erepov TO TADOS
A . oe 0 0 t \ ȴ N
0 KaTa TOU UToKEmevov AEyerOar TEhUKEV, Kal EoTL peTAaBoAH
Exaté€pov Tovtwy, ddAolwois pév eoTiv, Grav tropevovTos TOD
€ / a / 2 a € . cal /
vToKeevov, alcOnrov dvros, peTaBddAn év Tois €avTod Ta-
x BN a \
ecw, 7) evavrios odow 1 petagd {olov TO copa ty.aiver
kal maw Kkduver bropevovy ye Tavrd, Kal 6 yadkds oTpoy-
4 , 7 \ X\ c 3 / + ig , 7
ydros bre 5 ywrioedis 6 ards ye Gv) Gray 8 Gdov pera-
\ € , >] nA Ad ¢ / nn
BadAn fi) bropevovros aicOyTod Twos as secrads Raia TOU
> a > a a
avTov, GAN’ olov ex Ths yovns atipa maons 7H e€€ Bdaros arp
x b) ae A \ 4 / + Q a a x
n e€ dépos mavros Bdwp, yéveois Hdn TO ToLodrov, Tod dé
/
pOopa, pddr.ora b€, av H peraBodn ylvnrar €€ dvaicOyrov

x fal x Lal
els aicOnrov 7 apf 7 mdoas Tais alcOnoeow—olov bray

a@ 26 yiverat éx yu) Ovros om. L ore... 27 dvros om. E kal
om. L,add.supralin.J 27 é« yu) dvros om. FJ, add. supra yiverac H

29 tovro add. supra lin. J 30 dmopnoee Tis seclusi: om. &!
(codd. GT), et in marg. add. J: dmopnoeev av rus &! (codd. RZ),
Bekker : amopijoaé tis amk@s E —s €otrivom. EL _ 31. post Kodpov
add. ro EL 32 kal n yn J, sed 7 addito 7 om. FJ b 2 pev
om. E 7 add, J, prima tamen (ut videtur) manu 3 os] 7
(fort. 7 ?), ut videtur, F 4 ov om. E rocourwy eipeicOw J
6 Aéyouey H ri] rin ol 8 erei H Q mécuxe AéyerOa FL
10 pev obv €or FL et H, qui tamen rc. m. ody erasit Il pera-
Barn E éavtod EL®: airov J: av’rod FH 12 7 prius om. HJ,
et supra lin. add. F ovow om. FL 13 yeom. E rave]
avté F 14 yewvoedrs E ye om. J peraBadn E 15 Tivos
aig@nrov F ws| rou E 18 d¢, dv] & éay 7 om. F

3. 319% 26 — 5. 3207 12 |

ty / x 0 a > es € X 9X b) a > ,
Bdwp yevnrar 7 POaph eis dépa, 6 yap dip emerkGs avat- 20
6 , de 4 di € / / \ ee TR ,
aOnrov. ev € Tovrors dy TL dTmOpEvn TADS TO adTO evavTid-
wews ev TH yevouerm Kal TH POapévti (ofov drav e& dé€pos
n x‘ / a
Bdwp, eb audw diapavy 7 Woxpa), od de? rovrov Odrepov
mdOos elvar eis 6 peraBadAe ef 5& py, Cora. dddolwors.
otov 6 povorkds GvOpwros épOdpyn, avOpwros & dpyoucos eyé- 25
e 2. ¢ / 4 t Lae by S = 4 ‘
veto, 68 dvOpwros bropéver TO adrd. ei pev odv Tovrov py
f 4 > eA. € \ 1 2¢ _» YA ca) s /
mabos nv Ka? avTo 7 povolKky Kal 7) dpovoia, TO ev yéeve-
ois Hv ay, Tod 5 POopd: viv dé TAD0s TobTO Tod tropévovTos,
610 avOpdrov pev Tatra maOn, avOpémov b€ povorkod Kal
avOpdrov dyotcov yéveois Kal pOopd—bd.id ddAolwos Ta 30
n isd \ 5S \ A \ *. -€ ‘\ fal 3
To.atra, Stay pev ody Kata TO ToTOY 7 7 peTaBoAH THs evav-
Tidcews, avén Kal POiows, Grav d5& Kara Témov, hopd, Stay
dé Kata TO wd00s kal TO Towdv, adAdoiwots, bray be pN-
iN ¢€ , a , x ‘ (24 ,
dev trouevn ob Odrepov mdO0s 7) cvpBEBnKOs Sdras, yeveots, 320%
\ \ lA he 4 / XS / \ €
TO 5 POopd. ore 5€ H DAN pddrtoTa pev Kupiws Td tbr0-
Kelevov yeveoews Kal POopas Sextixdv, Tpdmov dé Tiva Kal
\ a x n 4 / XS XN ¢
TO Tais GAAats petaBodais, OTL TavTa dexTiKa TA VUTO-

i.

Ke(MEVA EVAVTLOTEOY TWwY. TeEpl peV oOvY yEverEews, ElTE
4 4 / \ nt »# \ \ P) / 14
€OTW ELITE PN, KAL TOS EOTL, Kal TEpl aAAOLWoEWS SiwpicAw
TOOTOV TOV TpOTOY*
, \ a /
5 wept d& avjyoews dourov eineiy, Ti Te diahepe yeve-
\ > , ‘ an b) / n > /
vews Kal ddAoWWoews, Kal TOs avf€daverar Tov adbfavope-
e 4 \ 4 € a na / / ‘
vov Exactov Kat POive: OTiody TGV POwovTwv. oKemTEoV 1) 10
mp@tov méTepov pdvas ev TO Tepl 6 eoTw aditay 7 mpds GA-
an /
Anda dvaopa (ofov dru 7 pev ex Todvde eis Tdde peraBorr

b 20 yivnra F 21 de]67 LL + éeav FHJ bropeivn E
22 To post kai om. EL 23 vdwp cai ¢ EH A] 7 Be Wuypa]
humidal ov dei] ov & «i J 25 60m. F avOp. 5 dp.] apovgos
6 GvOpemos E 27 avrd| avrov E 7 ante dyovaia om. &° Tou
fecit ex adrod vel rovrov F 28 dviv FHL viv... tmopevovros,
quae post 30 @éopda codd. habent, huc e Philoponi coni. transtuli

29 kal avOp.] 7) avOpamrov E 30 ra Totatta] radra & = 3 Td

‘om. EFe! 32 avénors FHL dopa, Srav dé xara om. E

33 TO priusom. EL - al tropeva J | kai F 2 dé 7]
de om. J: 7 om. L kai post pev add. L 5 evayt. Twev] Tov
evaytiacewy L, ovv om. FL post yevéoews add. Bekker xai
pOopas, quae perperam tribuit codici E 6 kal ras... dAoLwmoews
om. F 8 ri] rim L® 9 avédvera trav om, F, sed avgéa add.
in marg. 10 €xacrov ante 9 ray ponit J II mpérov om. L

povosom. F1H ¢vyr@om.E 4 post aAn\a ponit E

16 ITEP] TENESEQ> KAI ®OOPAS A

—olov éx duvdper ovoias els evredcyxeta ovolav—yéveats éotiy,
) 8& mept péyeOos avénois, 7) 5& Tepl TaO0s GdAdoiwors,

15 Guddrepa be ek Suvduer dvtwv els évTedéxeray petaBorr

on

n > 'd > bl NW 5 4 / a

Tov elpnucvwov éorlv) 7 Kal 6 Tpdmos diadheper THs pera-
Bodijs—alverar yap Td pev dAdowwdvpevoy odK e€ avdy-

/ X , OX \ , bY by >
Kns petaBddAov kara TOTov, ode TO yiWdpEVvor, TO 8 adéa-
vopevov Kal Td POivov, GAdAov Se TpdmoV TOD Pepopévov. TO
20 ev yap epdyevov Gdrov adAAdrTEL Témoy, TO 8 adEavdpe-
vov @atep TO eAavvdpevoy. Tov’Tov yap péevovTos TA pdpLa
! N , > of N a / N
peTraBadAEL KaTa TOTOV, OVX WoTEP TA THS odaipass TA

X \ 2 oe 4 , / Co A /

pev yap év T@ tow TOmM peTaBaddrEL TOD GAOoV peEVoVTOS,
XN X\ na > / > Pee. ye / + 3 / \
Ta d& Tod avfavoyevov del emt TAElw TOTOV, em edXaTTw Se

SN a / cf aN a € X , > ,
25 Ta TOU POivovTos. OTL peV ovv 7H pEeTAaBoAN dLadeper ov ovov
mepl 0 GAAG Kal Os Tod Te ywopuevov Kal dAdoLwovpevov kal
? / a A ny £6 antes. Sea >]
avfavoyevov, dnAov. epi d€ 0 7 peTaBoAn eoTiw H THs adv-
/ \ € an \ / X a 9 A
Enoews Kal 7 THs POloews (epi péyeOos S5& Sox? civar Td
2 / \ 4 / € / , ~ I
avfaverOar kal Oivew), morépws tmoAnnréov, moTEpov ek
5 / , aN / \ , b) , > b) /
30 Ovvapel pev preyeOovs Kal owpaTos, evTeAcxela 6 aowpa-
Tov kal dweyedovs yiverOar copua Kal peyeOos; Kat rovrov
dixGs evdexouevov A€yewv, ToTEpws 7 avEnors ylyverat, Td-

a a x
TEpov eK KEexwplopevns adtns Kal’ adriv ths BAns, 7 evv-
> + , & De?P 2 /
mapxovons €v dAAw oopuaTl; 7H advvaToy audoTepws; yXo-
b > x XN » x > / / , x /
320 pict?) wey yap odoa 7 oddéva Kabé£er rémov ([7| ofov oriyph
x n

Tis), ) Kevov éorat kal oGpya ovK alcOnrov: TovTwy dé TO pev

> ? / \ x2 ca W ee >, -& / 4
ovK €vdexeTal, TO S€ GvayKatoy Ev TWL Elva. Gel yap TOV EoTaL
\ , 3 > a a b) cal x > CS -K DS
TO yiyvopevov e& atrod, Bote Kakeivo, 7) Kal avTd 7) Kara
ovupBeBnkds. GAAG pray eb y ev run trdp&e, ef pev xe-

: x

Xwpiopevoy ovTws woTe pn) exelvou Kad’ attd H KaTa oup-
BeBynkds tt ecivar, ovpByoera. moAdAa kal ad’vara. déyw

on

@ 13 oiov 7 ek H evredexeray E 1] eotw in marg. add. E
14 mepi rd peyeOos E-post av&ous in marg. add. kai péious EF

15 audorépov F ex Tov Suvaper FH] 16 7 om. J 19 rd
prius add. supra lin. J 20 €vadAadtret Toy Témov F av&dpevov H

21 rovrov pev yap Ft 24 et 27 avf€ouevov H 24 dé post
eAdtrw om. J 25 ra om. EH], in marg. add. F diahéper 7
petaBoAn J 27 d¢ 6] 6 5€ H éotw 7 peraBokn FHL 7 ante
ris om. L 28 7 om. J dé om. J bI pev om. E 7) otor|
i seclusi: oloy yap (yp.) ®°: otov T 2 ms om. E, et &! (codd. RZ)

kat] 7) kai F?; 7} 3 dvaykatov Syndovdre ey F 6 vov... oup-
BeBnxos om. E, et ka’... cvpBeBnxdsom. & Kal] xa L 7
post 6 éxeivov J

5. 320% 13 — 320? 34 17

> n
0 olov ei yiyverar dip e€ Bdaros, od Tod Hdaros éorat pera-
/ a a
BadrXovros, GAAa bia TO domep ev ayyelo TH dati éevei-
\ na
vat th»v trAnv avrodv. amelpovs yap ovdév KwAdveu tras ecivat,
ccd
@oTe Kat ylyverOar évredexeias ert & 08d otrw daiverar
ylyvopevos ahp e€ Bdaros, olov efiav trowévovtos. BéAT.ov
Toivuv Toleiy Tacw axepioToy THY bAnV os ovoay Thy adTHY
\ 4 n > n a , XS \ / > XS ‘\ >
Kat play T@ apiOua, TO Adyw S€ pH play. GAA pay od-
d€ oTvypas Oeréov ovde ypaypas THY TOD cepyaros BAnv bua
\ aS, pane 2 2 a \ = a“ # Ce a
Tas avuTas aitias: éxeivo S€ ob Tatra écyara 7 An, tv
Io / n
ovdemoT dvev ma0ovs ofdy Te civat ovd dvev popdijs. ylyverar
yey ody ands Erepov e€ érépov, domép Kal év GAAows S.ispt-
\ aes XS > 4 5 x ¢ a x
oTal, Kal umd twos bé€ évredexela OvTOS 7 Opoyevodts 7
¢€ rat @ n Lote! \ \ » e9! > 3S ,
dpoedods (ofov wip bd amupds 7) GvOpwros im dvOpéTov)
x LED ee | 7 \ \ > ee n /
) bm evredexelas [oxAnpdv yap ody td oKAnpod yiverat:
b] \ 2.3 7 ‘ > / (vA ~” , > »f
emel O E€OTL Kal ovolas VAN TwpaTLK)s, T@uaTos 6 76n ToLOV-
/ lal X \ > / ¢ + eS \ ‘4 \ /
d¢ (oGya yap Kowdv ovdéy), 7 adr) Kal peyeOovs Kal ma4-
an S
Oovs éorl, TO pev Adyw XwplioTH, TéTo 8 od XwpioTH, Et fi)
\ bs / / \ S52 a t 4
kal Ta Ta0n xwploTa. davepoy bé Ex TOV SiNTOpHMEVwY OTL
ovK éoTw % avénots petaBorn ex dSuvdper peyeOovs, evTede-
i x XN wy / X\ s x 4 bY
xeta O€ pndev Exovros peyeOos' ywpiotoy yap av €ln TO Ke-
an ”
vov, Tobro 8 Gru advvaror, elpnrar ev Eré€pois mpdrepov. ETL
/
& Hf ye rowatrn petaBorr ov« aifjoews idvos GAAa yeve-
iv ¢€ X + / >) % 2 / ‘9 3 /,
gews Giws. 7 yap avéynais éori Tod drapxovTos jeyeOous ETt-
a / \
doois, 7 5€ POiows pelwors (510 dH exe Te Set peyeOos TO
a ‘ ¥
avgavéuevov), Sot ovk e& dyeyéOovs HAns det eivar Thy avfy-
. ,
ow els evredexeray peyéOovs’ yeveois yap av ein c@paros
Tas a f
paddrov, ovK avénors. AnTTéov 62) paAAov oloy amTopuEvous
‘ 7
b 9 éveivat] eivac EL 11 & om. F'J oid] ovx HJ®, et
fecerunt EF _—13 moveiy post dx@pioroy ponit F —etvar thy vAny FHJ
as om. L 14 T@ prius om. J, et ° excepto libro Z 1) piav]
‘ fe a ,
pnde piay F: pndepiay J: wy om. E 16 jv] nv iw FJ 5 Ep eter
Te] otovrar J 18 adds 7} époyevods erepov F* adXots] érépors ® :
os E 19 tnd] ard F d€ del evredexeia E dpoedous 7
époyevois EL 20 i) GvOpwros] kavOperos E 21 oxdypov .. «
yiverat aut eiicienda, aut post 19 dépoyevots legenda , yap om. E
22 odparos ... 23 ovdev post 25 ywpiora ponit L 6 40n] dn F:
\ >
* ) T, et post r suprascr. o, E 23 Kowov yap F 24 €orTi

om. L 25 7raom.E ej inlitura J: 6) L 27 xevdv EF?:

cowdv HJLY et (yp.) F2: utrumque agnovit 6° 28 roto] rod L

ev erepos Om. HL, in marg. add. F 29 6 om. L 30 dos
om. F évurdapyxovros F'HL 31 bn] det FJ re Oct] re EF?
rodeu J 33 Tadparos padXov] paddov copuaros F

2254 &

_

°

—

5

5

. &

18 [EPI TENESEQS KAI ®@OPAS A

a na n + ott bs
321 Tis (ytioews &€ apxijs, wolov twos dvTos Tod avédverbat 7
an n n /
rod POlvew Ta atria Gyrobpev. patverat bi) Tod avfavopevov
drioby pépos nv&jobar, duoiws de Kal ev TO POivew EdarTov
yeyovévat, &ru 5& mpooidvtos Twos adfdverOar Kai amuidvTos
a x x
5 pdive. dvayxatov 3) 1) dowudto adgdverOa 7 oopare.
J X\ be ) \ , 3 ip X\
el pev ody dowpdro, €orat xwpioroy Kevov—dadvvaTov 6é
/ A ey / ¢ + ‘ - bd de
peyebous tAnv eivar xwpiothy, domep eipytat wporepov: ei de
odpart, dvo0 ev TO aitG cépuata TOT EoTaL, TO TE adv-
Eavdpevov Kal 16 adfov, €or. 5& Kal Todro ddvvarov. GANG pry
\
10 ovd obrws evdéyerar A€yew ylverOar THY avEnow 7H Ti POi-
ee x4 2 A isd ? \ / c »
ow, Sonep Grav e€ Bdaros dnp: Tore yap pellwy 6 dyKos
/ ? \ BY a P) % / S a b A
yéyovev* ov yap avgnois TodTo GAAG yeveois pev TOD Els O
peraBarrer eorat, POopa dé Tod evayriov, adbfnots dé odderEpov,
IAN’ 7) ovdevdos 7H Et owov audow trdpyet, TO ywopevo
GAN 7) ovdevos 7 ek TL KoWdv Gpdoiy brdapxel, TO ywopuere
15 kal TS POapevti, ofov ei cGya. 7d 8 Vdwp od« nvEyra odd’
- Qn /
6 anp, GAAG TO pev aTdAwWAE TO SE yéyover* TO copa Oe,
elmep, nvéntat. dAda Kal Todr advvarov. det yap oo ew
TS Adyw Ta bTdpyovta TS av€avopévw kal POivovTt. Tad
D Ady¢ TApX TO HEVG i : A
XN / 3 ‘4 .@ A / b] \. £ “ : tal =
ta d& Tpia éoriv, Gv ev pev eott TO 6TLodY MEpos petCov eElvar
20 T0D avéavoyévov peyefovs, otov ei oap& THs capKds, Kal
mpoo.dvtTos Twds, kal tplrov cw louevov Tod avgavoyevov Kal
€ , 2 \ es n 4 / ¢ n x
btmopévovtos: ev pev yap TO ylyverOai tu dmhds 7H POelpe-
n~ a“ XN
cOar ovx tropéver, ev 5& TO GAAOLodcAa Kal adgaverOar 7}
/ € / \ » ae 4 > , x* | /
POive tropever TO adtd TO advfavdpevoy 7 GdAoLodpevor,
25 GAA’ évOa pev TO Ta00s evOa Se Td péyeOos TO adTd od peE-
: > \. ¥ € > / + ° / > ,
ver. el 51) Eorar H elpnevn avénors, evdéxoir av pndevos ye
, \ € / > \ \ 3 4,
Tpocidvros nde bropevovtos avEdverOar kal pndevos amov-
tos pOivew kal pry tropevew Td adfavopevov. GAA det
tobro aw ew: trdxeitar yap H av’énots Towodrov. amophoese
a2 dsjotvrou L 4 d€0om.E 5 avaykaiorv| advayxn EL 8]
de E 6 roante xevdyadd. FL: eI xevdy] xowdv FT et (yp.) &°
8 oapara ante ev L, post rérm ponunt ® et (supra lin. additum)
E = av&dyevov HL Q rovro] a’ré L 10 | Kai L 13 peré-
Balrtev EL = Oopa] dopa J 14 audoiv] dupo EL 14-15 ro
$6. kai to y. L: ro y. kal HO. F: 1h PO. al rd yevopévo &!: rh hOa-
pevtt E 17 eirep| ei E 18 «ai rt (suprascr. w) ¢Oivorts E
re cal 4 ~ a
19 evom. E petCov pépos E eivat] yiyverOa L 20 peyebous
om. E ei om. E, addito sec. manu 7: «i supra lin. add. F: » L
23 kai] 7 FHL avEeoOa F 24 ro a’ro supra lin. add. F

76 secundum om. L 26 ye] re FHJ 27 pnd€e Uropévorros
melius abessent

5. 32191 — 321% 24 19

7 - e
6 dy tis Kal ti éott 70 adgavduevoy, Térepov & mpooriberal 30
‘ / >
Tt, olov ef thy Kynunv avgdver, arn pelQwr, 6 && adéd-
e /, BA \ » Cal
vel, 1 Tpopy, ov. 61a Ti O1) ody OdK dudw HiENTAL; peiCov
\ \ «4 > wD, - A 4 “4 > A ¢ 4
yap Kat 0 Kal , @onep Grav pléns olvov Bdari dpuolws
+, an ef \ a SS / € Fp AL SD
yap mAetov Exarepov. 7 Ort Tov pev péver % ovcia, Tor 8 od,
olov tis tpopis; émet wal evratOa 7d emixparody A€yerat ev 35
Th plfer, olov Sri olvos: Tove? yap Td Tod olvov épyov GAN’ od 321»
7) tod datos 76 oivodovy piyua. sdpolws & Kal én ar-
/
AowWaews, ef ever capE odoca Kal TO rh éori, rdOos S€ Tr
c / n > € A / > e n ° yg
vmapxet TOV Kad avTd, 0 mpdrepov odx tripyev, HAAOLw-
ca) &
Tat Toro: @ 6 HAAolwral, bre pev ovdev TéroVvOEV, STe Be 5
, n b X \ 3 a \ e > \ n / 5) n
Kaxelvo, GAA TO adAoLOdY Kal 7] apx?) THS KWHoEws ev T®
avéavouevm Kal TG dAdowoupévw (ev Tovrois yap Td bv):
EVE é Mev (€v TovTos yap TO KivodY
b] \ \ \ b] ‘ / > 4 a \ ‘ bp)
emel Kal TO eloeAPov yevoir dv mote peiCoyv kal Td amo-
Aadcav avtod oGya, ofov ei eloeAOdv yévowro mveb}ua—dAN’
epOaprat ye rodro Tadv, kal rd Kivodv ovk év ToUT@. ere) BE 10
dintopytat wept avtav txavds, det Kal ths dmoplas Teipa-
/ € a“ , & £ / , a“ >
Oar AvVow evpeiv, TOCovtas TO bropevovTds TE TOD adéavo-
/ \ , \ > / > | / XN 7
MEvov Kal mpoo.ovTos Twos advfdverOat, amidvTos be Pbivew, :
of Xx \ c n n b \ x‘ n \
eTL O€ TO OTLOdY oHnpEiov aicOnTov 7 petov 7 eAaTTOV yeyo-
/ n n
véval, kal pare Kevov civat Td copa pyre d00 év TO ad- 15
A bows Lg , 2 P Ed wax Anaréoy 82
TO TOT peyeOn pHTE dowpdTw adfdverOar. AnmTéov se
\ n al
TO airiov dwpicapévors mpOrov ev pev Sri Ta dvopovopeph
avfdverat TH Ta Suoiopeph avédvecOar (cbyKerTar yap ék
4 e 2 \ ae a vo a
rovTwy ExacTov), ewe” dt. capE Kal doTodv Kal €xacrov Tov
ToovTwY popiwy éorl dittdv, womEep Kal TOV GAAwY Tov ev
er ie 3 , \ ‘ e€ vA / \ A ™
vAn €ldos €xovTwy: Kal yap An dA€yerar Kal 7d €ldos
aap€ kal dorody. 76 ody érioby pépos avédaver Oat Kal mpocidrTos
\ A
TWOS KaTa pev TO €ldds eoTi evdexduevorv, KaTa dé THY bAnV
* -~ . lal ee od
OvK éoTw. det yap vonom Bonep et Tis peTpoin TS adTo peé-

be

°

a 31 @] é oF 32 oom. HJLT, et erasit E? 8y] det J ody om.

E* otk om. Bekker errore typogr. 33 kai priusom. F 6 kai
° om. E @otrep kal drav F? b 5 rovro om. E: rére H oo
m\doiwrat om. E post rémovOerv add, ovd ere novia OF
ore be] ovd’ ére F 9 «i om. EF ye] te E mabev J
érel dé] emerd) S52 FL: éemesd) vel red) Be el 13 avfeoOa FL
15 room. L 16 pyre] nde EJ avger Oar J de] 5) FLe!
17 rT) altteov om. H dewproapevors J &om. L dpotope pi) E
19 exaoroy priusom.E ~— exacroy ray ToLovTay] TovTwy ExagTuy Tav L
20 dirrav E 22 kai prius] ) FL

C2

20 TEP! TENESEQ> KAI ®@OPAY A

25 Tpo Udwp: det yap adAo Kal GAAO TO ywopevoy. otro

ved € DN a , \ bd ¢€ a \ /
av€averat 7 VAN THs capKds, Kal ovx OTwody TavTL mpocyt-

> X\ \ XS € n \ be / nn X /,
veTat, GAAG TO Mev UTEKpEl TO SE TpOTEpyxETal, TOD -dE TX7-
patos Kal Tod eldovs dtwody popiw. én TOV dvopoiopmepOy Se
Todro padAov dHArov, otov xeupds, bt. avddoyov nvEnrai—?7

30 yap tAn érépa odoa didn mGAAov Tod eldovs évradOa 7) ent

\ \ a € fal > A \ n ad
gapkos Kal TOV 6pwoLtomepGv, 010 Kal -TeOveGTos paddov dv
a sh
ddfevey eivar ert cap€ Kal doTody 7) xelp Kal Bpaxlwv. aorte
+ S c c a Lon \ y+ 4 2 ££ + XS
€or. pev ws OTiody THs capKos nvEnrar, €ot. 8 ws ov? KaTa
pev yap TO €idos drmoty mpoweAnAvOer, Kata S& THY DAnv od.

a A
35 MetCov pevror TO GAov yeyove TpoaeAOdvTOS pEev Twos, 6 Ka-
322% Neirat Tpodpi) Kat évavtiov, peraBddAdovtos bé eis TO adTo

ur

Io

I

or

? n /
eldos, ofov ef Enp® mpocion bypdv, mpooedOdyv Se peraBadrAor
\ / 4 bd aN \ € AX @& € , ’ /
kal yevoro Enpdv éot. mev yap as TO Gpotoy dpuoiw avEdverat,
wv 27 .¢ 3 7 p) / > ns a > \
éott 5 ws dvopotw. amopnoee 8 dv tis Toidy Ti Se? etvar TO

e

> / \ X\ v4 / 3 as > SS
© avgaverar. avepov by bru dSuvdper exeivo, olov ei cap
/ / 2 / A A s XN a
duvayel oapkas evTedexeia apa dAdo. GPOapev 1) TodTO
cap& yéyovev* ovKody ov TodTo ato Kal? adr (yéveots yap av
9 ? BA 3 x \ > , 4 P ® \ Ag \
WV, ovK avEnors) GAAG 76 ad€avdpevoy TOUT. Ti oty Tabdy bm
rovrou [nvénOn]; 7) pix dev, Gomep olve ef Tis emty€or Bdwp, 6
NVUCHEN}; 1 BLXUEV, p . x Ps
d€ ddvairo oivoy Tovey TO plyOev; Kal @omep TO Tip aWa-
pevov TOD KavoTod, otTws év TO adfavouev@ kal ovt. evTede-
I \ \ yea. 3 \ , /
xela capki TO évdv avfyrixoy mpooeAOdvTos duvdper cap-
Kos émoinoey evredexela odpKka. ovKody Gua ovros: et yap
, n mn
xwpis, yeveois. Eat. pev yap ovtrw Top moijoa én TO bT-
/ /
dpxov eémidevra EvAa: GAN otrw pe avgynois, Grav de
a /
avra Ta Etha apOh, yéveois. Tocdy be TO pev Kadddrov
> , c OX ~ A | BA / a
ov yiverar, @oTep ovde (Gov 6 pyr GvOpwros pyre TOV

b 25 8] 6) Fz «ai L 26 ovx] ovxt FHJ ét@ovy] ovTw@oty
RS éroouy “psprov E? 6 ante rav ponunt FHL = 31 dy om. F

32 ert eivar J Bpaxetov 5 34 pev] péevror F 35 yeyore
7d d\ov EL aT evayriov EJ 2 mpocior] mpooredn E: mpoo-
in L peraBarto. EL 3 ws supra lin. add. J 4 amopnta E

ro om. E 5 avéerau F 7 tovro om. L xaé’ airéd om. E
ay om. F 9 nvé76n aut eiiciendum, aut post 8 Toure legendum,
aut nvénoev cule ° (p. 117. 12) scribendum domep byp@ 7) ove
(7) tamen sec, manu addito) E: domep ay ow H eom. E: ei tes
ante oiv@ ponit L emexear HJ: émexect fecit Og 10 duvaro E:
Svivara F cat H@°; om. EF JLT 13 odpka om. E 14 €ore
. ++ 16 yeveots om. L 15 emriOevra F : adiungentes I 17 pyre
7. trav HIT, fort. recte

5. 321525 — 6. 322b6 21

Eee, a lal
Kad’ Exacta (GAN @s évradda rd KaOddov, Kaxed rd Toedr),
x de 49 Cre. \ bp / \ 4 ee a
oapE b€ 7 darodv 7 xelp (7) Bpaxlwv) Kal rovroy Ta Suoropepi}:
4, \ /, n ») > - 4 n
mpooedOovtos pev 61 Twos TOTOV, GAN’ ov GapKds TOTS. 1} 20
t

a /
pev ody dvvdyer TO ovvayddrepor, olov roai caps, radrn pev
avéer (kal yap moot det yiverOar kal odpxa), 5) 8& pd

yap 7 y apka), 7) 5& pdvov

/ / 4 x / a

capé, tpeper tatty yap diapeper rpopi) Kal avéyows Td
, \ / . * a

Ady. 610 Tpeherar pev Ews Av od(yrar Kal POivor, avse-

XS > . Br \ 3 \ n 3 £ ‘ \ ae ,
tat d€ ovK del, Kal % tpody TH av&foe TO adrd pev, Td 25
> > 4 Ps ® S ld 2 \ \ / ‘
6 evar GAAo* 7 wey ydp é€ott TO Tpooidy Svvdper Too}
odpé, ravtn pev avénrixov oapkds, de pd duvd

pé, np NTLKOY aapkds, 7) 5€ pdvoy dvuvdper
F nm
aapé, Tpopy. Tovto b& Td eidos [dvev bAns], ofov addAds, bv-
/ b] A b) 4 pbs / 4 A ® f
vais Tis EV VAN EoTiv. Edy On Tis TpOTin VAN, otoa Suvdper
> , x \ \ \ / - 4 /
avAds, €xovea kal TO Toady Suvdpet, obToL ExovTar pelCovs 30
3 n
avo. édav 5 pyxére rovety ddvntat, GAX’ oloy Vdwp oive
- oe" tal 6 / € na n \ (cA ,
ael TAElov putyvupevoy TéAOS vVoOapH Toler Kai Bdwp, TOTE
, a a
Hoicw Toujoet TOU Toco" Td 8 Eldos peéver.
> an a a ed n
6 ‘Enel 8& mpGrov det epi tis tAns Kal TOv Kadovpévwv 322»
oroixelwy eimeiy, clr” éoriy elite pn, kal mérepov aidiov &xa-

: |
aorov 7} ylyveral tws, Kal ei yiverar, métepov @€ GAAHAwY
ylverat TavTa Tov avrov TpdToY 7} TL TpPGToV ev ad’Tray eorww—

/ n na
avaykn 5h mpdrepov eimety Tept Ov adioplotws A€yeTar VV. 5
mavrTes yap ol re Ta sToLyeia yevvarTes Kal of Ta ex TOY

a 19 de] d€ your L? i) xelp ) darouv Je! i) vedpa post xeip
add. D®: # Bpayiwr e coni. addidi, coll. 321» 32 20 pev dn om. L:
pevom, @! = 21 duddrepoy E122 Sci] dei EE yeveoOar Jpn
ol 23 tavtn yap] ravtn Kal yap ravrn E, et F qui ravrn secundum
supra lin. add.: ravrn* kai yap &! 24 pOivor] Péivn (correcto n)
E: $07 H: hOivea F avéaverat EL 25 av&ioe] avén H:
avEn J per, TO] pev, TO F 26 & om. E 27 odpé, 6 ravTn
E = 28" divev Ans seclusi, vide infra ad v.29 dvvapis tis] res Sivayus
o! 28 et 30 avAos, 31 avAo codd. omnes, ® et Bekker: avdAds
et avAoi scripsi, coll. 6° (pp. 109. 26-110. 7) : ‘tibia’ et ‘tibiae’ vertit
Vatablus 29 post eoriv add. prima manu dyolws dé cal GdAo te
ovv dpyavoy J, inter dAdo et tt suprascr. 6. Habent etiam eadem
verba I’ et Vatablus, sed una cum dvev vAns (v. 28) eieci: suspicor
enim haec omnia, ad explicandum aiAds vel divAos in margine
ascripta, inde in textum irrepsisse dn] d¢€ FHJL, et fecit E

mpocio: F 31 dvvara EF oivo tdop EL! 32 rove!)
now fecit E 33 monoe| om. E: ovee et in spatio trium
litterarum incerta quaedam F : wovetrar L b 1 ézei] éwedy F

3 yiyverai] yiyvovraa E: yivovrar ® mos... yiverat om, E?

4 yiyrovraa Ef] et J. =—s tp@rov] rpdrepov FH], sed yp. parov
supra lin. add. F 5 4) om. E® mpdtepov| mparov Ls 6 re
om. L

10

20

25

30

323°

22 MEP]: TENESEQS KAI ®OOPAS A

arouxelwy dvakploes ypOvrat Kat ovyKpioes kal T@ Toveiv
kal mdoxew. ott 8 ovtyKpiors pigiss TOs bE plyvvcbat
A€yovev, od SispioTrat capds. GAAA pry odd addoLodo Bat
duvarov, ovde diaxplverOar cal ovyKpiverOat, undevds ToLovy-
Tos pnde maoyovtos. Kal yap of mAclw Ta oToLXEla TOLOUY-
Tes yervGou TO Tovreiv Kal mdoxew bm GAA/AwDY, Kal Tots e€
évos avdyxn éyew Thy Toinow: Kat TOOT dpOGs A€yer Aro-
yévns, bru et ph hv @& évds Aravra, ovk dy Hv 7O Toveiv Kal
TO Tacxew tm dddAjdwv, olov Td Oeppdyv WixerOa kat
robTo OeppalverOar mdAw—ov yap 1 Oeppdrns peraBddAce
kal % wWouypdrns els GAAnAa, GAAG dyAov Sri 7d drokel-
pevov, @oTe ev ols TO Torey ore Kal TO TacXEW, avayKn
TovTwY play e€tvar THY DroKemevny diow. TO pev oY TaYTA
Towatra civar pacKeww ovK dAnOés, GAN ev bcos TO bm adA-
Ajrdwv éoriv. GAAG pHy el Tepl Tod ToLely Kal TaoXEW Kat
Tept pi€ews Oewpntréov, avdyKn Kal wept adjss ovre yap
mouev Tabra kal mdoxew ddvarar kuplos & pm oldv Te
iwacdar GdAjAwv, ovre pH GWapevd Tas evdexeTrar py O7-
vat mp@Tov: Bote wept Tpiav Tov’rwv siopioréov, Ti ddr Kal
rl pigis kal tl moinows. dpynv 5€ AdBopev THvde. dvdyKn
yap tév dvtwy doois éotl pléis, eivat Tadr dAAjAwY arti-
kd, kav el TL Tove, TO b€ Taoxer Kupiws, Kal Tovro.s
woattws' 616 mpOrov dextéov Tept apis. cxedov pev ody

@omep kal tov GAAwy dvopdtwv Exaotrov éyeTar TOAAa-

xGs, Kal Ta pev 6pwvdpws Ta 5 Odrepa and Tov érépwv
kal TOV TpoTépwv, ovrws exer Kal Tepl adjs. Suws d& TO
kupiws eydpuevov tmapyer Tois €xovor Seow, Oéots 8 olarep
kal tdémost Kal yap Tots pa@nparixois duolws amodoréov
anv Kal romov, cir eéotl Kexwpiopevoy Exactov aditay «ir’
dAdXov tpdTov. el odv éoriv, domep SiwploOn mpdrepor, Td anre-

b 8 kai ro ndoxew FH 10 eer yap StaxpiverBa H 12 To|
To E kai T@ Tacxew HJ add\AnrAwy om. EJ Kat rois|
kairo. (addito supra lin. s) J: yp. xatroc add. supra lin. F 14 €&
€vos ig ELo! 15 TO prius om. Le! 16 tovro] TO vdwp E
18 éore om. FH ro ante racyew om. E 20 iva ro.aira EL

23 oldv re] otovra J 24 addjrov dyacba F aydpeva adX7-
oy ras F 25 Tptov ToUT@Y Tay rowovTrey H = 27 _ ray dyrwy post

pigs ponitF dcas] ois EHS! 28 movet] ron EFHL maoxer]
naoxn H 31 Spowipeos:J Tay om, F @ 2 éoti] éora L
3 Tpdmov Gddov Es!

wt, ae

6. 322) 7 — 323% 30 23

\ an
0a. TO Ta é€oxara éxew ya, tatra dv dmroiro GAXj-
4 4 / \ / 4
Awv doa Sunpnveva peyeOn Kal Oeow exovra aya exer ra
yy
€oxata. ene 5€ O€ors pev Soors Kai Tonos badpyet, TOTOv
d€ duapopa mpdéryn TO Gvw Kai Td KaTw Kal Ta ToLadTa ToY
avTikemevov, Gravta Ta GAAjAwY Garéueva Bdpos dv exor
x , \ +f Kx / >S XS a >S
) Kovdoryta, 7 apdw H Oarepov: Ta b€ ToLadTa TabynTiKa
/ a
kal toutiKa? Wwote avepoy bri radra AnrecOar mépvxev
b) / / al ef
adAAjAwY, Ov Sinpnyevov peyeOOGv Gya Ta ecxard oT,
¥ lal \ n ee ae | / b] \ \ \ a
GVT@Y KIWNTLKGY Kal KivnTOV tT GAANAwWY. emeEl OE TO KLWOdY
> ¢ 4 tal \ 4 y X \ \ > / 4
ovx Opoiws KivEet TO KVovpEvoY, GAAG TO pev avayKn KLVOtpeE-
\ ¢ SP an \ > > Pa yay. ~” ig A SN ”~
vov kal avro kweiv, TO 8 akivntoy év, SHAov 6ti Kal emt Tod
TowobvTos épodpev @oattws Kal yap TO Kwodv Toveiv Th pact
\ na n lal
Kal TO Towody Kiely. | ov pyv GAA dvadéper ye Kal Set b10-
pitew—ovd yap oldv te may TO kivodv Tovey, eimep TO ToLodY
, a / nan ro
dvTiOjoouev TH TacxovTL, TodTo 6 ois H Klwynots mados,
/ n @
ma0os d¢ Kal’ Goov ddAdoLovral povov, otov TO AEvKOV Kal TO
Oepuov, GAAG TO Kiely emt TA€OV TOD ToLEtY EoTLW—exeivo 8 odY

4 ira + S € S\ \ n nn ed bs]
avepov, Stu €or. pev ws TA KWWNTLKA TOV KIWynTOY ATToLT dy,

éoTt 0 @s ov. GAN 6 diopiopos TOD GmTecOa KaOddrov pev 6

na an an na ny A

Tov Oéow exdvT@v Kal TOD pev KiVNTLKOD TOD 5€ KiWNTOd, TpdS

a a / a

GAAnAa S€, KwyTiKod Kal Kwytod év ols bmdpxer TO Tovey
\ \ i SS a c yas x \ 2 ar: ,

Kal TO Taocyew. €oTL ev oY ws ET TO TOAD TO ATTOMEVOY

n /

amtopevov anrdyevov—xal yap kivel Kiwotueva TavTAa oXE-

dov Ta euT0ddv, Soois avayKn Kal aiverat TO amTOpevoV
/ \ a ed

adnrecOar antopevov. €at. 0, ws eviore paper, TO Kwodv anTe-
n «4 €

0a povov Tod Kwovpevov, TO 5 antouevov py anTecOat anro-

lat cal / nm
pévov—dAAG 61a TO ively Kiwovpeva TA duoyery, avayKn SoKEt 30

a4 dnroyro F 5 Sunpnpeva scripsi, cf. 323% 11: dtapiopeva
codd. et B° —éyeu] €xew L 7 mporn post kdrw ponit F TO
ante xdrw om. EL 8 ra om. E €xou] €xn F 12 Kwntav
kai kwnruev FHL érrel| emi E 14 dy add. supra lin. J
15 xwovv| xwety L 16 rotor] roeiv L = Suapeper kai det E, sed
et kal det fecit in loco plurium capace 17 1O Kwour wav FHJ
rovovy| moety F HJ 19 7d utrumque om. J TO Oeppov Kai Td
Aevxdy F 20 kwveiv] kwodv E metov H _ 21 Kuntixa]
dkivnra F : incertum E!: x.wodvra L®, et fecit E*: motiva immobilia
tangunt I Kwnt@v] Kivoupevov ® 22 ws om. E 6 post peév
om. &! (codd. RZ) 24 dé om. E KuNTOU Kal KLWNTLKOU E@
imdpyew E 25 ro postkaiom.L roposteriom.E = 27 nical
ois ® Kat om. J 28 gor... . 29 dmropevou om. F 29 povoy
povov F 30 dporoyern EHJ? Soxei] doxetv EFHL

323°

5

Io

15

20

24 TIEPI TENESEQS KAT ®OOPAS A

oe 53 / e ¢ ¥ ~ 2 7 b] al
elvar amTowevov antecOal, Wore el TL KiVEl Aklyyrov OV, exEtvo
na a /
pev dy &nroro Tod KiwyTod, éxelvov dé ovdév— ayer yap éviore
Q a € a r >] > > RS 7 ‘ ‘
Tov AvTOvYTA AmTeTOaL Huav, GAN’ ovK avrol éxelvov. Epi pev
n an a n na \
oby apis ris év Tots dvotkois diwpicOw rodroyv Tov TpdTov:
na an / na
mept 5& Tod wovely Kal maoyew AexTéov eeEHs. Tapet-
na ; /
Anpapev 58 Tapa TSv Tpdrepov brevavrlovs dAAjAoLs Adyous.
an n na /
ot pey yap mAEtoro. TovTd ye GpovonTiKGs A€yovow, ws TO
S 4 € \ nN ¢ / ct 3 / 3 \ \ Ss
Mev OfOLOY VTO TOD Omolov Tay amabes é€oTL Sia TO pndev
Tad XK /
PaAXov ToinTiKoy 7 TaOnTLKOY elvar Odrepov Oarépov (mdvTa
x ¢€ / € / r Ie. a c / x > 3 /
yap dpoims tmapxew tattda Tots dpyolos), Ta 8 dvdpora
kal Ta diddopa moety Kal maoyew GAAnAa TédvKev: Kal
yap érav tO édatroy Tip td Tod TAclovos Pbeipynras,
dua THY évavtimow TodTd hac. TacxeELV, evayTioy yap evar
TO TOAD TO OAlyo. Anpdxpitos S& Tapa Tovs dAAovs idlws
» , Mew aN et. \ 9 5 ,
édeEe pdvos: ynol yap To avrd Kal Guouoy eivar TO TE ToL-
oby Kal TO Tdoxov—ovb yap eyxwpety Ta Erepa Kal diadé-
povta maoxew tm GdAAwY, GAAG Kay Erepa GyTa Toth
/ > e ed > > #@ > , € 4
TL GAAnAa, OVX 7) ETEPA GAA 7H TavTOV TL brdpxet, TaUTY
na na , fy _ 2
TovTO ouuPBaivew avrots. Ta pev oy AEyopueva TadT éoTiv,
> x ¢€ nN \ / / ¢€ ‘4 ‘4
éolkaot 5& of todroy tov tpdémov A€yovtes trevavtia dat-
veoOar réyew* altiov de THs évavTiodroylas Ort déov Sdov TL
Oewpioa mépos TL Tvyxavovor A€yovTes Exdrepot. Td TE yap
ix \ \ / P) +o \
Gpoov Kat TO mavTn TavTws Adidhopov evAOyov pi) Ta4-
€ iA a -.e ra / / > vad /
axew t7d Tod duotov pynOev (ri yap paddAov éoTrat Oarepov
x an
TountiKov 7 Odtepov; et TE b7d Tod dpolov Tacyew TL dvvarer,
\ F Gr EF By n 7 ny v4 > , IO’
Kal avto. vp eavtov—xairo. rovTwv obtws éxdvtwv ovdev dy ely
ov é ba BA | ee y \ @& @ of
Te apOaprov ovre axivyntov, eimep TO Spyotoy 7) Spovov Trown-
/ lad an
TUKOV, avTO yap éavTd KuhoeL Tay), TO TE TaVTEAGs ErepoV

@31 kivoE 32 dvom.HJ~ xeivouE b2 mporépoyv FH
brevavtiots L =—-§ ~Oarepou Odtepov J] ~=—s- 6 bmdpyer FH 7 raom. F

maoxetv eis GAAnta FL reqhuxevaa EHJ 9 macxe ante rovTo
ponit E eivat post 10 rd odd ponit L Il éhey&ev E, sed y
erasit gacivE xaiom.E 12 eyywpet E 14 Tt prius om. L

eis GAAndka FL 15 avrois] dAAnAas H trait | rovaita H
16 daivesOa om. T, et (ut videtur) #¢, Vitellip.141.15 18 éxdrepot]
aupérepo F 19 kai rd] rd kai 7d, duabus litteris post kai
deletis, E 20 yap om. E Oarepov ora FH: €ota Oarépov
E! 21 7om. E et re Bonitz: etre Bekker Tl maoxew
EL 22 a’rov EHL rouroy| trav E ovtas éxdvtov] dvrev
ovros FHJT: otras ovras E 23 ovre prius] ove E 24 €avro]
avro EL,

6. 323% 31 — 7. 324° 18 25

\ \ ~ F S% c 4 Or x
Kal TO pnOaph Tavtovy woattws. ovdey yap dv mdOoL dev- 25
¥ a x \ \
KOTnS UTO ypaypns ypaypyrn t7d Aevkdryntos, TARY el
/ e
Mh) Tov Kata ovpBeBnKds, ofoy ei cvuBEBnke AEvKyv 7) pé-
Aawav eivat THY ypaypny: ovx eblorno. yap éavra ris
ptoews Soa pyr evaytia pyr e& évavtiwy éotiv. add’ erel
ov TO TUXOV TEpvKE TaTXEW Kal ToLEiv, GAN’ boca 7) evay- 30
BN a
tlwow exer 7) evavtia éotiv, dvayKn Kal TO ToLwody Kal TO
n / XS v4 = ‘ > , cal > yf
macXxov TH yever ev Suoroy civar Kal radvrd, TS 8 elder
dvduowv Kal evavriov (mépuxe yap ocGya pev tnd odpa-
> a n
Tos, xupos 0 trod xvod, xpGya 8 brd ypeparos Td-
4 XS : Rae. XS ae a ¢ ny 4 > a
axew, Srws b€ TO Opoyevés b7d TOd dSuoyevods: Tovrov 8 324
aitioy ére Tavaytia év TO atte yéver Tavta, Tore? Se Kal wd4-
Pp) / ©" 2 >) iF e ’ > / na x >
axe. Tavavtia im dAdAndwv), Sor dvdyKn TGs pev iva
TavTa Td Te ToLwdv Kal TO Tdcxov, TGs 8 Erepa Kal dvd-
pow aAAjAos. emel 5€ Td Tacxov Kal Td Towiy TOs
\ > ae. \ v4 ny > 4 3 , “”
pep yever tavTa Kal Spyoia TH 8 elder dvdpora, To.vadra
dé rdvavtia, davepov bri maOnTiKd Kal ToinTiKa GAAHAY
éorl ta Tr évaytia kal Ta peragd—xal yap Bdrws pOopa
kal yeveois év Tovrois. 810 kal evAoyov Hon TO TE Tp Oep-
‘4
Maivew Kal TO Woryxpdv Wiyew, Kal 6Aws TO ToOUNTLKOY 64.01 to
a a ca) \ /
ovyv éavT@ TO TdoXOV. TO TE yap TOLOdY Kal TO TAacXOV évay-
/ \ /
tia éori, kal » yéveois eis ToUvayTiov: Hor’ avayKn TO TAaTXOV
> \ A. / v4 X\ 4 b | b] / €
els TO TOoLoUy pmeTaBadrAELY, OUTW yap EoTaL Els TOUVaVTIOY 7
/ /
yeveois. Kal Kata Adyov 8) TO pi) TavTa A€yovTas audo-
na / /
Tépovs buws antecOar ths dioews. A€youey yap TacxeEW
a \ x \
Ore ev TO roKeipevoy (ofov tyidCecOar Tov avOpwmrov Kat

5

OcppatverOar Kat WiyerOa Kat Tada Tov adtdy TpdTor),
\ /
Ore O& OepyaiverOar pev Td Worxpdv, tyidterOar Se TO Ka-

b 25 pndapyn J: pndapas F Aevk. U. y.] AevKdrnTos Uo ypaupny
a “i hs fae Tsdietaine E?; péedava r . 28 éavta] Anda EL
29 émedy F 30 méuxe] yp. fouev in marg. add. E 4 om. J
i) €vavriwow exer post 31 4 évavria €oriv ponunt FH, et post 7) évavria
L, qui éorivom. 31 xaipriusom. EL —§ 33 mépuxe pev yap E

@1 dpotoyeves H dporoyevois EH 2 tr aird] ravr@ E — roveiv
d€ Kai maoxew H 5 eet] emi E d€ Kat TO maayov FH 6 kal
ra duota E 7 dtu ta maOnrixa E 10 dAas 7d] dros mE
Il atté E I2 70m. E eis om. J 13 €ora post
yévec i dn] b€ E duos J°*b°T: duoiws
14 yéveots ponit F 14 8n| de 15 dpos :
EFHJ'L © dmreoOa in litura J 16 ére] rore E otoy Td

vyiateo Oa L kai] i) kai L: Kali 76 Oeppor kai E 17 kai WoyerOar|
Tov Aidov H&¢

20

25

324°

5

10

26 IIEPI TENEZSEQ> KAI ®OOPAS A

pvov. dubderepa 8 early adnOH (Tov adrov b& Tpdmov Kal
3 * n~ n e's, XN ‘ \ + , /
€ml TOU TOLOUYTOS, OTE peVY yap TOV aVvOpwrov dapyev Oepyat-
<“%, \ \ , 4 SS S ¢ ¢ ¢ / a
vew, OTe 5& TO Oepudv), oT. pev yap os H TAN TaoxeEL, EorL
’ c 3 / € >" > 4 > mn , > /
6 ws TO €vavtiov. ot mev ovr eis Exetvo BAEWavTeEs TavTOY TL
dey GiOnoay TO Tory éxew Kal TO TdoxoV, of 8 eis Oa-
> 7 4 tae | XN , e / > \
Tepa Tovvavtiov. Tov avrov b€ Adyov broAnmTEov civat TeEpt
Tov Tovey Kal mdoyew Svmep Kal Tept Tor KweloOar Kal
a n X\ " ‘ 4 “ b] @ XN €
kiweiy. dix@s yap A€yerar Kat TO Kivodv: ey @ TE yap 7
apx}) Ths Kwhocews, dSoxel TodTo Kweiv (h yap apy) mpdry
a \
tov airiwv) kal méAw Td €oxatov Tpds TO Kivotpevoy Kal
THY yeverlv. Opolws dé kal Tepl TOU ToLOvVTOS* Kal yap TOV
larpov ayer byidew Kal Tov oivov. TO pev ov TPOTOV KLVOvV
ION 4 ° Xx / a 3 aN p eee | > ae XX \
ovdev Kwdver ev pev Kivnoer akivytov eivar (em éviwy d& kal
> al \ > ¥ > N lad 7 » ye. \ ,
avayxkaiov), TO 8 érxatov del kiweiv Kwotpevov: ent d& Tow)-
gTews TO pev TpPOTov anmabes, TO 8 Ecxarov Kal adTd Td-
4 \ ‘\ By \ is. % A lal > cod
axov. dca yap py exer THY avrivy bAnv, Tore anaby
yy @ € > / 2 —N x ” ¢ / OX
dvta (olov 7 larpikn, avri yap novovoa vylevay ovdev md-
axel Utd TOU vyiaCouevov), TO O& ouiTiov Tovovy Kal avro
! x s la x , = We 4 tee
TATXEL TI—7 yap Oepuaiverar n WoxeTar 7 GAAO TL TaoKXEL
d a ¥ s-£ N b] 5) © 2 / \ X , \
da towdy. €oTe dé» pev larpiK) @s apxy, TO 5€ ouTiov Td
c x ‘ c , ad XS > \ > v4 / X\
@s €oxaTov kal antdyevov. doa wey ody pr ev DAN exet THY
/ a ~ > ” n x 4 ee | v4
poppiy, Tatra pev anady tev TomTiKov, doa & ev try;
/ X\ > X iv4 / ¢ / € > tal XS
mabntika—rThv pev yap vAnv A€yopev dpoiws ws elmety Thy
an / _ /
atrny eivar TOV avTiKELevaY OmOTEpovOdY, OaTeEp yévos ov, TO
dé duvduevov Oepuor' civat mapdvTos Tod OepyavTiKod Kal 7AN-
oidgovTos avadykn OeppaiverOar. 516, KaOdwep eipnrat, Ta
hey TOV ToWnTiKGY arab Ta 6€ TaOnTiKd, Kal @onep ent
, \ an an
Kwwyoews TOV avTov éxet tpdTmov Kal em) Tov ToLNTLKOY"

@ 20 rov om, F 21 70m. E 22 Tovvayriov E Tt om,
FHJ? 23 Oirepa] @irepov F 24 S€ Adyov] tpdmov F =. 25-26 xeveiv
Kai kwweioOa EL 26 7 om. E 27 7 yap om. E 28 7d
éoxarov ... 29 yéveow] ultimum aliquid id quod movetur ad genera-
tionem T° 30 xwvovv om. E 31 perv] pev ody E: pev ri F
32 7d] ro E?: rov F emilémeh E - 3.4 Exar] maoxer E: eyn J

35 avr] atrn FHJL bi réomootv FHJ. 2 mt priusom.F
tT... « Ocppaivera in litura J i) Wuxerae om. E 3 ouriov TO ws
€axatov] €xarov 76 atriov F (sed post otrioy erasum habet as éo-yaror) :
autiov TO éoyatov E 5 pev ovv amabn E 6 dpoiws delendum
notat J THY avThy ws eimeiy F 7 émorepovovy E : érorepwvoiv
Hj? évdelendumnotat J 8 Oeppartixod] Oeppod H 11 tpdrov
éxet F

7. 324° 19 — 8. 325% 3 ae

€xel TE yap TO Tp@ToV Kiwodv axivytov, kal emt TOV ToUNTI-
K@v TO mpGTov ToLody anabes. Eot. 5€ TO ToUNTLKOY alTLOY ws
fod € >) ‘ ~ /, 4 > e @ b] ,

d0ev 7 Gpxn THs Kwhoews. TO d ov Evexa ov ToUNTLKdY (510
» vyleva ov mountiKdy, ef py KaTa petadopdy): Kal yap Tod

-
on

wey TovodvTos bray brdapxyn, ylyvetat TL TO TdoxXoVv, Tov 8
ed n > / 7 >) > a a> X\ > wy
éLewy TapoveGyv ovKett yiverat, GAN EoTw Hon, TA 8 e€ldn
5 >

kal Ta TEAN ers Ties. 1 8 VAN 7 DAN TaOnrikdr./ TO wey
ouv Tip éxeu ev VAN TO Oepydv: ei SE Tu Ein Oepyov ywpiord

p & n 7 Oepp n Oepuov xwpiordr,

an ba be oN n XX » yf p] 4

tobro ovdev dy mdoyot. TotTo pev ody tows advvaror €ivat 20

, > > 3 \ »” n > 9 B] 7 x 4 \
xwpirtov—el 0 eotivy evia rovadra, én eéxelvwy av ein TO
Aeydpevov GAnbés. Ti pev ody TO ToLEty Kal Taoyxew eoTi
kal tlow tmapxer kal dia Ti Kal TOs, StwpicOw Todroy Tov .
TpoTrov'

8 ° TGs be evdexeTar TOTO TUpBaivery, TaAW E€ywmeV. Tots 25
mev ovyv doxet Taoxew Exaoroy did TwWwv Tdpwv elo.dvTos
TOO TowdvTOS €oxaTov Kal KYpiwTaTov, Kal TovTOY TOY TpdToV

yee oe X49 / € on \ NS + > /,
Kal Opay Kal akovew nuas gact Kal Tas Gddas aicbnoes
aicOdverOar macas: ére 5 Spacbar did Te dépos Kai tda-
\ a n XS \ , ba > XS :
Tos kal Tov diapavdv, 51a Td mépovs ExEw Gopadrovs pev 30
dud puKpotnTa, TuKvovs S€ Kal KaTa oTotxov, Kal jaAov
éxew Ta diadavy paddrov. of pev ovv ent Tivwy otTw didpt-
ied > cal > / > _.¥ na 4,
cav, donmep Kal “EpmedoxAjs, ov povoy él Tav ToLovyTMV
kal macxdvtTwv, GAA Kal plyvvcbat hacw sow of rdpor
n ‘ \
ovppeTpor mpos GAAnAovs ciciv: 656 8& pddioTa Kal Tepl 35
/ tae / / / ag \ , > a
TavTov Evi Adyw Siwpixacr AcdKimmos Kat Anpoxpitos, ap- 325
, a
Xv Touncdpevot xara vow trep éotiv. evios yap Tov
A A
dpxaiwy é0€e ro dv e& avdykns & civat Kat axivyntov: To

b 12 mpores FL 13 TO... anaes delenda notat J mparas
FL TO pev tromntikoy L I5 7 om. F 16 éray yap tmdpxn E
vt delendum notat J 17 745n] €tdn EF? iraomF 9g
vAn om. BS TO ma@nriKoy F 19 xwptorov Oeppoy ein F: et
xepiorov Geppdy HJ 20 dy om. F 21 eotiy om. H 22 Kal
To mdoxew HO! = 23: irapyew F 25 Aéyopev HJ 26 éxaoroy
post méper ponit L 27 fort. rod ¢éoydrov legendum 28 kal
primum om. EFL 29 d€ om. F 30 kai] re kai dua Fev
om. E 31 opexpérnra FHL ~—_—_s or rotxov] orurxetov F'J Kat Ta
paddoyv J 32 €xeevom.J — tevwr] tivos F ovtws r@pnoay J
34 paow] dynow JL door] Sy FL: om. E 35 ovpperpot post
eioiv ponit F eiaivy om. L a1 évi Aéyo om. E®!, et delenda
notat J 2 fort. legendum jep éorw, cf. Parmenides fr. 8, vv. I
et 2 (Diels, p. 118) 3 €& ayayxns delenda notat J

en

| fe)

md
or

2

°

2

tn

28 NEPI TENESEQS KAI ®@OOPAS A

an %
pev yap Kevov ovk ov, kwnOnvar 8 odvk dv dvvacOat pi) Ovros
a / 25> . > Ret Se eke. diel,
KEvod KEXwpLopevov, ovd ad ToAAA elvat pr OvTOS Tod d:Elp-
fal ’ ION 5 / ¥ ¥ \ XS >
yovtros—robtro 8 ovdéy diaéperv, ef Tis olerar ur) ovveExXes el-
vat TO Tay GAN GnrecOar Sinpynuevov, Tod pdvat ToAAG
\ Sy > \ , X \ , AN
kal pa) @v elvar kal Kevov. el per yap mavrn diatperdv, over
f 3.4 a
evar Ev, Bote ovde TOAAA, GAAA Kevov TO GArovr el be TH
a a /
pev Th d& py, TeTAGTPEVH TLL TOdT EoLKevat. péxpt TdTOv
an fe +f
yap, kal dia ri TO pev otrws Eyer Tov GrAov Kal wANpes EoTL,
\ de 5 / . 4 ie € lA > nan \ S “2
TO O& Sunpyuevov; Ere dpolws davayKatov pr etvar xké-
co n bs
vnow. €k pev ody TobTwY TOV Adywv bTEpBdvTes THY alcOnow
kal Tapiddvres adtnvy @s TO Adyw d€ov Axodovbety Ev Kal
nae Xx lad 9 / eee. A éZ \ XS /
akiynrov TO wav eval dao Kal Gmetpov Eviowr TO yap Tépas
/ x \ \ 4 c XN a (v4 ' xX V4
Tepaive av mpos TO Kevov. 8 pev ovV OUTwS Kal d1a TavTas
Tas aitlas amepyvavtTo mepi THs GAnOclase xx. Ere deem pev
lal lal a na /
TOV Adywv doKel TadTa cvpBatvew, emt 5€ TOV TpaypdaTor
7 / > \ / v4 > / ‘ lal
pavia TapatAnowr elvar TO do€aCew obtws* ovdéva yap TaV
pawopevwv e€eatdvat Tocodrov Bote TO Tip ev eivar Soxeiv
kal Tov KptUoTadAov, GAAQ podvoy Ta Kaha Kal Ta gatyd-
~ / pen lee. ee S ‘\ ‘4 AN ~
eva bia ovvnderay, Tadr eviors dia THY paviay ovdevy Soxet
/ * / 4 \
duapepew. Aedximmos 8 exe @nOn DAdyovs, oiriwves mpos
sly
THY alcOnow dpodroyotpeva héyovTes odK Avaipnoovow ovTE yé-
veow ovre pOopay ovre kivnow Kal TO TANOOS Tay dvTwY. dbpuo0-
, an n al \
Aoynoas dé Tadra pev Tois dhatvopévois, Tots b€ TO ev KaTa-
oxevacovol. @s ovK av Kivnow ovoay dvev Kevod, TO TE KEVvOV
X A \ ALi — IAN ‘\ ¥ 4 0 \ \
#1) Ov Kal Tod dvros ovdevy pa dv gyow eivarr TO yap Kv-
A oud nan
plws dv Taumdjpes dv. GAN eivar Td TovodToY ovx Ev, GAN
x a n
aneipa TO TAHOos Kal Adpara bid opikpdrnTa TdV dyKwr.
7 a 3 5) n a , 6 ( \ ~< 9 ) \
atta ev TO KEevVo eperOar (kevov yap eivar), Kal ovv-
'd aS / a , \ / a
LOTapEva pev yeveolv Troveiv, dtadvoyeva S€ POopav. Trove

a6 8 ovdcy] dé pndey EL ct]#ei FL: utsir 8 &omE

yap] mapa J 10 tour’ Gy éotxévat F : rodro dv éouxe L 12 & post
ervom. E époiws hava dvayxaiov FHL 13 UmepBaivoyres EL
14 tmepiddvres HJ : despicientes T 16 av om. L ovv om. E

17 post adnOeias excidisse quaedam suspicor érJjémei L pev
post 18 Adywv ponunt Ee! 19 eva] éore FHJ 20 éyom. E
21 kp’orahovJ 22 dia ryvovvnPeav F? 23 @nOn exe F 27. od}
otre FHJL_ std re] rovetv E: rroveiv ro 8é F? (roveiv addito, et ro dé ex
76 tefacto) 28 yap om. EJ 29 dv prius] €y EJ — wavmdjjpes
J: wav rAnpes H: rrapmdnées (ut videtur) L év secundum om. J

ro om. H - 30 kai... dyxoy in litura addit E rc. manu: kai
ddpata post dyxwv ponit L = uxpdrnra J 32 dom. E

8. 325% 4 — 325% 25 29

s \ / .Y € / 4 x >

d& Kal mdoxew 7) Tvyxdvovow anrdueva (ravrn yap ody
/ las

év eivat), kal ovvTiOéueva 8% Kal mepimAeKdpeva yevvay. ék

d¢ Tod Kar dAnOevay Evds odk av yevéoOar TAHO0S odd’ ex 35

Tov GAnOGs ToAAGY Ev, GAN eivar Todr ddvvarov: GAN’,

domep “EyredoxAjs kat tév dddwv tives ac. mdoyxew 325>

dua TOV TOpwr, otTrw Tacay GdAOlwow Kal Tay Td TdoyeEWW
todrov yiverOat Tov TpdTOV, 51a Tod KEevod ywvopevns THs b.a-
AVoews Kal THs POopas, duotws Se Kal rhs adifjoews, tr-
4 n BN S ae a 9 vad
evodvoyevwv aotepeav. oxeddv b€ kai EyredoxAet dvayKatov
/ fod ~ \ 4 , > ~ 7
Aéyeww @oTep Kal AcvKinmds gynow: civar yap arta ore-
/ n a
ped, adiatpera d€, ef pt) TavTn TdpoL ouvexeis elo. Todro
0 advvaror, ovOev yap éotat Erepov oTEpedy Tapa Tovs Tépovs,
3 \ Cad , > / + .. X\ 14 4 > P)
GAAG Tay Kevov. avaykn dpa Ta pev Anroueva eivar ddu-
4 \ \ \ Fon aN Is A 2 a) / ,
aipera, Ta 5€ peragd adttdy xevd, ods exelvos A€yer Topovs"
otrws 5& kal Aevximmos éyer TEpt TOD ToLelty Kal TaoxeELW.
€ ER , > A % SS al X S f
ot pev ody tpdTo Kal’ ods TA wey ToLel TA SE TaTXEL TXE-
ddv odro. A€yovrat. Kal mepl wey TovTwWY, Kal TOs €yov~r,
djAov, Kal mpds Tas avTov Déceis als ypovTar cxeddv dpo-
Aoyoupevws chalverat cvpBaivov: rots 8 GAdAos Frrov, ofov
*"EpredoxAet tiva tpdmov ota. pOopa Kai addolwors
ov dyAoy. Tots pev yap eotrw addiaipera Ta TpOTa
TOV copaTwY, cxypat. diadepovra pdvov, @€ av TpdTwv
ovyketrat Kal eis & Eoyxara dvadverau ‘EpmedoxArct dé
x >: yo \ ed / n / »” ‘
Ta pev GArAda gavepov GTi pexpt TOY oToOLXElwY EXEL THV
yéeveotw Kal tTHv POopay, airdav 5 Tov’Twy mas yivetar Kat
, ‘ , TAs yy a 7 2 of
poeciperar TO Twpevdpwevoy peyeOos, ovTE SHAOV oVTE EVdEXETAL
n al \ 9 n
A€yew adTS pay A€yovtt kal rod mupds eElvar orotxeior,
Guotws S& Kal tTév GAAwv ardvTwv, SoTep ev TO Tipalo
A , an \ \ te
yéypaghe TAdtwrv. tocodrov yap diaheper Tov pn Tov avrov

&@ 33 Tuyyave: F 34 kal prius om. L b 2 troavom. EL
4 POopas| hopas J eiaduvopevov EJ: imodvopevay F - 5 orepe@y
FI: erépovy EHJL 6 daow F arta] avira J 7 Kai post
oreped add, E mépos L 8 é€ora om. F érepov om. EL

15 oloy...17 yap om. F, sed in margine addit otov ’Eymedoxei riva
tpomov éorat POopa xai yéveois ov SHAov. Tois pev ydp, et inter plura
incerta habere videtur etiam dAXoiwors 16 rival i) ei triva H
éxra POopa EHJL: éora yéveois cai POopa Bekker, qui haec verba
libris FH perperam attribuit 17 éotw] éora J? ra om. E
18 mporev| mporov F 19 dtadvovra EJ 22 ovre secundum]
oun L

—_—

5

30 NEP TENESEQS KAI ®@OPAS A

/
tpdrov Actkinmm déyew, bt. 6 pev oreped 6 8 emimeda deE-

¢ /
ye. Ta Gdialpera, xal 6 pev ametpois wpicbat oxnpacr
n > / n e ¢ XS € / 3 a Pee lA
[rv adiaipérwv orepedv ExacTor] 6 5 wpiopevors, erret advat-

/ 4
peta ye Guddrepor A€yovor Kal wpiopeva ocynmaocw. €K
\ 4 ¢€ / \ ¢c ‘4 "3 X\ UA
30 8) ToUrwy ab yevéores Kat ai duaxpicers Aevkinm pev [dvo
n n lod lal 4
tpdro. dv elev,| did Te Tod Kevod Kal bia THs aps (radry
yap Svaiperdv Exacrov), TlAdt@v d& Kara tiv anv povor"
an /
kevov yap ovK elval now. Kal wept pev TOV adiatpeTwV emL-
nédwv elpjxawev ev Tots mpdrepov Adyouss Tept 5€ TaV adu-
35 alpérwy oTepeav TO pev emt TA€ovy Oewphoar TO TvpBatvov
adeicOw TO viv, ws 5 puKpov TapexBaow «inet, dvay-
326% xatov dnabés te xaorov déyew TSv ddiaipéTwY (od yap otdv
xX x a a

Te mdoxew GAN’ 7 bia TOD Kevod) Kal pynOevds TounTiKdY Ta-
dovs—otre yap oKAnpov ovre Wuxpov oldy 7 eivat. Katto TodTd
a n tal \
ye Gtonov, TO pdvoy anododvar TS Tepipeped cXHmaTL TO
, b) / a \ > / \ \ » \
5 Oepydv: avayKn yap Kat tovvaytiov Td Wuxpov GAAw Twit
Tpoonkel TOV oxnudtwy. dromov b€ Kav ei Tatra pmev
bmapxel, A€yw be Oepydrns Kal wouyxpdrns, Bapiryns 4e

\ , \ , ‘ , % 4 /
Kal Kovdotns Kat oKAnpotns Kal padaKkoTns pa) bmap&e
/ + / \ X\ ¢€ 4 => /
kalro. Baptrepdv ye Kara tiv trepoynv gnow eivar Anpo-
Io KpiTos ExacTov TGV dd.taipéTwy, OoTe SHAov Sri kal Oeppore-
pov. To.dra 8 dvra pi macxew tw adrdjAw@Y addvaror;
olov t7d Tod ToAY brepBdddrovTos Oeppod TO HpEwa Oeppov.
GANG pry ei oKAnpdv, kal padakdv.. TO 5 padraxdy 7d
n / / % XX € A / > ‘
T® Tacxew TL A€yeTalre TO yap VTELKTLKOY padaKov. aAAG

\ ” \ s x 3 , b) 3.-— , Lo
15 Mv Gromov Kal «i pnOev tmapxe. GAA’ 7). povoy oxHpa,

\

kal el tmapxe, ev d5& pdvov, olov TO pev Woxpov TO dé
Oepuov? ovd& yap av pia tis etn 7H tors adrav. dpolws 8e
addvvaroy Kal ec mAclw TO Evir Addialperov yap dv ev TO

b 28 trav... €xaorov seclusi 30 ai ante diaxpicesom.F post
diaxpioes distinxit J nev] quidem enim Tr dv0 tpdrot dy eter
seclusi 31 tpdrots J elev Gv F 32 adiaiperov H®!Fr
mrdrov H =. 34-35 mepi be ray orepedy Tay ddtaipér@y J —- 35. A iov
HJ GewpeioOa F 36 adnoba J ro] ra H cinco eret E

a2i|]7J 3 oxdrnporv| calidumT wuxpdr ovre oxAnpov EL
oldy 7] bet F kairo. ye TovTo F 7 wmdpxn FHL: imdpxn J

dé secundum om. J 8 okAnpérns Kat kovpdrns F imdpénm J:
tmapén L 12 Oeppdv FT? Wuxypdv EHJL 13 78n om. EL

14 yap] & F brexrixoy J 15 7 om. Ee! 16 Wuypor]
okAnpoy EHL! 17 70m. EFL 18 e om. FJ :

i * aT ee

8. 325 26 — 326” I0 31

> A s / ef OB 25 / 2. ,
ait® &€e. Ta mdOn, dote Kal Cav macyn irep Woiyera,
/ KN
TavTn TL Kal GAAo Toiujoe 7 Teloera. Tov avrov be
tpomov Kal éml Tov GdAwv TaOnudtwv: Tobro yap Kal Tots
XX \ n 3 / / vd 7 \
oreped Kal Tots éemimeda A€yovow adiatpera ocvpBalver Tov
avtov TpdéToVv, ovTE yap avdrepa ovTE TuKYdTEpa oldy TE yt-
vera. Kevod pr) OvTos ev Tois Gdiaupérors. er. 8 Gromov Kal
\ \ XS > i > \ / ny s
TO puKpa pev adialpera eivat, peydda d& pH. viv pev
\ > , S / Y 4 lad an n ‘
yap evrAdyws Ta peilw Opaverar padAov Tov puKpOv: Ta
XxX \ 7 € / ~ / /
ev yap suadverat padiws, ofoy Ta peydda, mpooKdmTeL
an : \ nr
yap moddots, TO 5€ Gdiaiperoy dAws Oia Th padAov trdp-
Xet TGV peydAwy Tots puKpois; er. 5@ méTepov pla mdvTwv
€ , a ee wu? n EN , “al aC an 4
n pvots exelvav TOV oTEpEeay, 7 diadeper OaTepa TOY éETEpwr,
adomep av el TA pev ein mipwa, Ta O& yhiva Tov dyKov; ei
N x , , b) \ ae A 7 \ 7 b) Ss
ev yap pla vows €otiy anavtwyv, ti TO xwploav; 7 d1a
7 > / € e c - vA e x4
ti ov ylyverar anpdpeva &v, dorep tdwp tdaros brav Olyn;
OX X\ / ‘ @ nN / > Ie na
ovdey yap diadeper TO VoTEpov Tod TpoTEepov. ei d ETEpa, Tota
tadta; Kal dnrAov ws Tatra OeTéov apxds kal airlas rdv
, al x X / x S f
ovuBawovTay padrAov 7» Ta oxnpwata. ETL S€ diadepovTa

THY plow Kav Toll Kady TacyxoL Ovyydvovta GAAjAwY. ert

A cal \
d€ Ti TO KWwodv; ef pev yap Erepov, maOntika: «i 8 adrTo
en bD \ x > 2 x ca) >
avTO ExaoTov, 7 Oiaiperov éoTat, Kat GAO pev Kody KaT
¥ XK
GddAo S& Kiwotpevov, 7) KaTa Ta’TO Tavavtla tmdpée, Kal

¢€ vA 3 , ° n # la be! \ \ / isd
n DAN ov povoy apiOu@ Eorar pia AAAG Kai dvvapyer. doot

wey ov dia THs TOV Tépwy KWHoEds hao. TA TAON oULp-
Batvew, ef pev Kal TeTANPwpEVOY TV TOpwr, TEplepyov oi
mdpo «i yap tavtn Tacyer TL TO Tay, Kav pa) Tdpovs
éxov GAN adro ovvexés dv Tacxo. Tov advTov TpdTOY. ETL

a19 hmep oixyera H: 9 mepupixera F: cimep yixerar EJL:
secundum quod infrigidatur T 20 tavtn tt J: tavtn rt EL:
ravtn to. F: ravro ts H: hoc aliquid T: tavr@ ro. Bekker, qui
ravr@ codd. omnibus perperam tribuit © post @ddo add. re L

22 oreped| érepa (ut videtur) E? 23 pavetepa F yeveoOa F
26 peil@| peyadda E paddov om. F 27 padiws Tay pikpav
oiov F mpokérre FJ 28 ra b€ ddiaipera L 29 peyddror]
d\ov E 30 7 om. Eol Tov oTepear exeivov L 32 €orly
om. EL 34 mporépovl arpdrepov EJ*L 35 Tadra prius] rovadra
F tadra secundum] ravras EJ, fort. recte b 2 mow Kav macyn
FL 3 S€é ri om. E} maOnrixéy F 5 Kata ravro| kar
avTro E 7 Kwhoews| tpyoews coni. Prantl, sed nihil mutandum
8 kai om. L Qt macxeE: rom.L room. L 10 macxor]

naoxe. FL

32 TIEPI TENESEQ> KAI ®OOPAS A

d& més evdexerau Tept rod spay ovpBalvew ws €you-
¥” \ Ny \ arn > "4 , ; \ a
ow; ovTe yap Kara Tas adas evdexerar Suevat dia TOV
an a 4
diahavey, ovre bia TOV Tépwr, ef TANPNS ExaocToss Ti yap
diolcer Tod pi) mépous Exel; Tay yap duolws ora TArpes.
b) X VA > \ bs x a > RR A « , >
15 GANG piv ef kal Keva pev Tatra, avayKkn 6€ copmata ev
€ a »” 2. A Ye > XN na \
avrots exew, TadvTo cupByoerar TdAW. el 5€ THALKAadTA TO
, ef \ , n Vd lal \ \
peyeOos wore py S€xecOar Gua pndev, yeAotoy TO pLKpOV
\ 4 \ a / bs S : ae a xh
ev olecOar Kevoyv etvat, peya S€ py pnd OmNALKovody, 7
TO Kevov GAAO TL olecOar A€yeLY TAY yxopav adpaTos,
20 Mote SHAoV St. TavTL copaTL TOV OyKoV toov EoTaL KEVOV.
4 X\ \ l4 Lal / 3 *% SX XN na
dAws O€ TO TOPOS TOLEiy TEpiepyov. El peEY yap pNdeVv ToLEt
XN ‘\ € 4 ION x na 4 , , b] S
Kara THY ayy, ovdé bua TOV TOpwY ToLnoEL Suovs Ei SE
ny ed \ ba! 4, + bs NS / \ ‘
T® GnrecOa, Kat py TOpwv OvTwY Ta meV TEloETaL TA OE
, an Q of n © , 4, v4
Toinoel TOV TPOS GAANAG TovTOV TOY TpOTOV TEpuKOTwWY. OTL
\ » e/ / \ 4 c € /
25 MEV OVY OUVTWS AEYyELY TOUS TOPOS WS TIVES VTOAAUBavovoLY,
BN a K If A > / ) / a b
n Weddos 7 paratov, pavepoy Ex TovTwY EoTiv. SiaipeTov 6
y id n / , ~ ca) @ x
OVTMVY TAVTN TOV THLATwWY TOpOVs ToLEly yedotov-—7 yap
diaipera, OvvaTaL xwpiCer dar.
Tiva 6€ tpdmov tbrapxet Tots ovo yevvay Kal Tovely Kal 9
/ / , > \ \ / > /
30 TagKxeEW, Acywuev AaBovTes apxnv THY ToAAAKLS EipnuEerny.
b / b: \ aN / \ en / a /
el yap €oTL TO ev Svvaper TO O EvTEAEXELG TOLODTOY, TEdv-
Kev 0U TH pev TH 8 OV TaoyeELW, GAD TaVT 0 dcov éorl
i i] XE, TavtTn Kal’ doov €éortt
fal e \ la n lal
Towovrov, HrTov b& Kal paddAov 7 Tovodroy paddy et. Kal
@ \ / , BA / i f
NTTOV’ Kal TavTn Topovs ay Tis AEyor paddAov, KkabareEp
35 €v Tots peradAevopuevots diaTelvovtt TOD TaOnTiKod pA€Bes
~ py
327° ovvexets. ocvpdves pev ody Exactor Kai ev dv arabes: dpuolws

or

\ a / , n / lal
d€ Kal pr Otyyavovta pyre abraév pyr GdAdAwv, & Tovey
/

méepuke kal mdaoyew (Aéyw 8 ofov od povoy antopevov
/ \ n b) \ + 5 3 nt ! \ be 4

Oeppaiver TO Tip, GAAQ Kav Amobev }—TOv py yap dépa

\ na c 2 \ n 7 \ \ al \

570 Tip, 6 8 anp TO cGpya Oeppaiver, TepuKas Kal Tovey Kal

bil wept... 12 évdéxerae in marg. add. F 12 dveivaa EO
14 €xew mépovs EL mav| mad J éorat| eoriy E 15 kai
om. EF! 16 avrois FHJ Ler 18 péya ante Kevoy ponit F

20 €ora kevoy iaov H 21 moti... 22 mépwy om. E? 22 de
kal T@ E 26 é€ori ante davepoy ponit F 27 dvTwy post
ca@patey ponit F 29 Tots ovow vmdpxe J yevvay rots ovor F

kai ante woeiy delendum notat J 30 eipnuévnvy modddkis F
31 rowdrov] rovro J mwéuxey in marg. add. F 32 navrws H

34 avj i E héyou] Ayn L: om. E —— padXdov 7 kaddwep EFJ
a2 avray Je! 4 Oeppaive EJ? dmobev EJ 5 anp kai rd
E nepukos J kat ante wovety om. EL

8. 326 11 — 10, 3274 32 33

/ \ XS a XS ” tay. \ / /
TAT X EW). ‘TO O€ TH wev sais TaoXeEw TH SF py * * « dvopl-
> a a . \ N ,
eras €v 4PXii Tovro Aexreov. ei pev yap py mavTy diat-
\ 2 > n x
petov TO péyeOos, GAN oT. cya ddialperov % TAdros,
ovk dy ein TavtTn TaOnTikdv, GAN’ ode ovVEXes OvdEév: El BE
an fal laa ao) 4 OX
tobro wWebddos kal wav oGpa diaiperdv, oddév diapéper din-
a x
pnoOa pev AnrecOa dé, 7 diaiperov ecivar. ei yap diaxpl-
veoOa. dvvara. kata Tas adds, Sonep acl rwes, Kav
/ ba n
pnw 7 Sinpnpevov, €otar Sinpnyévov: Svvardv yap ds.apeb7-
7 x AN 3 4 4 \ an sf
val, yivetar yap ovdey advvarov. ddAws b€ Td Todroy yiverOa
Tov Tpdémov pdvoy oxiCouevay TOY cwudTwv GroTov. dvaipet
N @. ¢ , 2 M4 fon ‘ \ SS n
yap ovutos 0 Aoyos adAoiwaow, OpOyev S€ TO av’TO copa
x A ree N € \ €« s , > , x
guvexes Ov OTE pev vypov Oré S& TeEmNyds, od diaipécer Kal
ovvbéce. TodTo TaOdv, ovde TpoTA Kal Siabtyf, Kabdmep dé-
yet Anpoxpiros—ovre yap peraraxdev ovre petareOev Tiv
giow mennyds e& typod yéyovev, ovd evumdpyer Ta
oKAnpa Kal memnydra addiatpera rovs dyKovs, GAN dpolws
e € , 5 Pale XN \ \ Ie 3 4 > 399
aTav vypov, OTE O6€ OKANPOY Kal TETNyOS EoTIWW. ETL 6 OvVd
¥ 4 > > \ 4 > Ni € na \
avEnow oldv T° eivar kat POlow: od yap 6riody éorar yeyovds
petCov, elmep €atar mpdocbecis, kal pr) av peraBeBAn-
x x
Kos 7) plxOevtos tivds 7) Kad’ atrd petaBdddovros. Gre
pev ody €oTt TO yevvay Kal TO movely Kal TO ylyveobat Te
kal mdoxew tm addAjdwv, kal riva tpdmoy évdéxera,
Kal tla pact pev twes ovK evdéxerar dé, duwploOw Todrov
TOV TpOTov*
\ XS n \ / S \ Fe ,
10 6 Aourov 8 Oewpjoa. wept plkews Kata Tov adTov Tpd-
< n n lal / >
Tov Tis peOddov, TodTo yap Av tplrov TGv mporebévtmv e&
an ,
apxns. oKentéov b& ti rt eorly H pigis Kal rl Td juKTor,

a6 post uy excidisse quaedam suspicor 7 To ev apxn (ut
videtur) I mavtn| marti E 8 capa pev ddiaiperor HQ ov-
dev ante ovde ponit F 13 orate Senpynpevoy om. F, et delenda
notat H yap om. F 14 ro om. E, et delendum notat J

15 pévovom. FLT 16 6 Adyos obros H: obros 6 tpdwos F _ 18 kai
&iabtyj om. E: xai diabnyy L (cf. supra, 315” 35) eyes] Hyoi F
19 ovre yap... 20 pow] neque enim transductum neque transposi-
tum secundum naturam neque transmissum I 19 perataxdev obre
perarebey] perarebev ov're peraBaddy L: perareOev E: perareder Thy
duow ovre petraBardov F thy iow] rn puoa H _ 20 006
evurrapxet] ovdé viv imdpxe E'LT: ovr’ evumapxe E*FJ ra om. EL
23 yeyovos E 24 €ora| éori EL 25 peraBahdvros EL
26 re] re J 27 kal tiva rpdmoy évdéxerat om. E 28 d€ om. E?
30 Se] dei vel 6) &! = Oewpntreov FHL
"2254 D

34 MEP] TENESEQS KAI ®@OPAS A

\ / c n »y \ an » \ , #
kal tlow tmdpxer TOV dvTwY Kal TOs, ETL 5€ TOTEpoY EoTL
pigis 7 Todro Weddos. addvvarov ydp éort plxOjval tr Ere-

35 pov éTépw, Kabdmep A€yovol tives: dvTwv pev yap érL Tov
327° mixdévrwy Kal pr AAOLWHEVOY Ode” POAAOY pepty Oat
pact viv 7 mpdrepov, GAN dpolws exes Oarépov dé Pbapév-

Tos ov peutxOar, GAAG TO pev eivar TO 8 OvK Elval, THY

XX / c 3 , 9 \ » A x , \
de pléw dpolws exdvTwy eivarr Tov avrov b€ TpOoTOV Kat

, ‘ i

5 €l dudorépwy ovvedOdvtwv &pOaprar Tov puyvupevov Exa-
TEpoV, OV yap Elva pElypeva TA ye GAwS OK dvTA. oOvTOS
wey ovy 6 Adyos éouxe Cyreiv duopicar ri diadéper plEis ye-

\ n \ / \ \ a na \
véoews Kal pOopas, kal Ti TO puKTdoy Tod yeryynrod Kal pOap-
Tob: dyAov yap ws det diadépe, cimep EoTw Bore TovTwY
10 ovTwY avepGv Ta SiaTopynOevTa hUowT av. GAAG piv odde
XN vA n \ ~ lA ION /
THY tAnv TO Tvpl peptyOat gayev ovde piyvvobar Kato-

/ wy 3 IN ( ea an BA an 3 XX
KEVnV, OVT avUTIVY avTHs Tots poplois ov’TEe TH Tupl, GAAG
\ XN n 7 X\ X 7 \ o's 2s XN ,
TO pev Tp ylverOar THY d€ POeiperOat: Tov avTov dé Tpd-

XOX nn / “ \ ION \ _ lad n
Tov ovdé TH odpate THY Tpodiyy ovde TO oXHUA TO KNPo

15 Miyvyvpevoy oxnparicey Tov OyKov: ovde TO cGya Kal Td
Aevkov otd GrAws TA TAOn Kal Tas EFers oldv TE peutyOar

na / /, \ Ee > » ‘\ OX \
Tols Tpaypaciv—owopneva yap Sparta. GAAG piv ovde TO
Aevkdy ye Kal THY emioTHnv evdexeTar p1xOAvat, odd’ GAdo

a \ n Ig / 9. % ny / > n
TOV Py XwploTav ovdev. GAAA TovTO AEyovolw ov KAaAGS

2008 mavTa more duod ddoxovtes elvar Kal *peutxOaur ov

\ ed d , r) > € ds n \
yap Gnav Gravte puxtév, GAN tmdpxew Sel yxwpiorov
Exdrepov TGV mix OevTwr, TOY bF TAabGyY obey ywpioTdY. erel
> ’ n
8 éorl ra pev dvvaper Ta 8 evepyeia Toy dvTwv, evdéyxe-

XS / = / \ ‘ ‘oy b) . s
Tal Ta pixOevTa elvat mws Kal py Elva, evepyeia pev

/ wy. na / n

25 €TEpov OVTOS TOD yeyovdTos e€ avTGv, Suvdyer 8 eri Exaré-

: br nm n
pov Gmep joav amply pxOqvat, kal ovx dtokwAdTa—rodro

€

yap 6 Noyos Sintoper mpdrepov, palverar 5€ Ta pryvipeva

& 34 ptxOnvai te post 35 érépm ponit F b I kai rv py H
I-2 viv pepixOai haow EL 4 €xdvt@v dpoiws J kai] kav EL

6 yap om. L 7 Swopioa om. FL ri] rim ELol 8 re
kat POopas L yernrod FJ 10 Avor’ avy FJ! ovre EJ®

Il T@ rupli thy vAnv L pepixOa ro rupi J I2 avrns] adris
H: avrois FT 14 ovde prius] ore FHJ 16 pepixOar]
piyvvcba EL 19 adda... 22 xoptordy post 31 avray ponit 6°

20 6pov kal pacKortes EL 21 drav om, E dravrt om. F
24 per] pev pr etvac H 25 dvros érépou F dé re eivar éxdrepov
H: 6€ re é€xarépov L 26 mply ptxOnva in marg. add. F

10. 327% 33 — 3284 19 35

/
mMporepov TE EK KEXWPLOMEVWY oVVLOVTA Kal dSvvdpEva Xw-
/ / + / a A \ n
piterOar madi. ovre Stapévovow ovv évepyela HoTEp TO TGpa
kat TO Aevkdv, ovTe POelpovrat, ovre Oarepov oiT audw, ow-
‘ € / > aa \ n X > l4 \
(erat yap 7 dvvapis at’rov. 610 Tatra pev adeloOw: Td
6€ ouvexés Tovrois amdépnua Siaiperéov, mérepov 7 pléus
‘ 54 -.% 4 ‘ A ed X
mpos thv aicOnow ti éori. Stay yap ovTws eis piKpa d.al-
n \ 4 \ an > B an \ ,
peOR Ta pryvipeva Kal TeOi Tap GdAndAa Todbrov Tov Tpd-
v4 x a > an b] , , /
mov @ote pr diAov Exacrov eivat TH aicOnoes, TOTE pepLKTaL ;
>: ek, me »/a ¢ ¢€ a a. 1€ a ey , n
7 ov, GAN (Gre) €orw dSore Sribv wap’ drioty elvar pdpiov Tov
/ / >.” a 3 / “@ \ n
bux Oevtwy ; *A€yeTal pev ovV ExElvws, .oiov KpLOas peutxOat
mupots, Sray nricody map’ dvtwodv TEA «i 8 eoti wav copa
Suatperov, elmep Corl TOya coparTe pLKTOV poLopeEpes, STLOdY
x 4 , /. ? fe a DI \ bd) b) ” >
dv d€or pépos yiverOar map oriody. eémel 6 ovK EoTw eis
4 a
Ta €AdxioTa diaipeOjvar, ovde oivOects TaiTd Kal pilus
> > e an € yx XN \ , an XN
GAN’ Erepov, SHAoV ws OTE KATA piKpa owCOpeva Set Ta
puyvdpeva pavar peptxOar (ctvOecis yap Eorar Kal ov Kpa-
ais ovde pigis, odd’ e€e. Tov adrov Adyov TG GAw TO pOd-
X\ X\ “ + / \ X\ ¢
plov: gapev Se Sdetv, elmep pepixtat, TO puxOev dpoto-
an WA
mepes eivat, Kal @omep Tod VoaTos TO pepos vdwp, ovTw
kal Tod Kpaévros: dv 8 7 Kara puxpa otvOeors 7 pts
p i pixp pikes,
AN , / b \ , / \ \
ovdey ovpByoetat TovUTwY, GAAG pdvoy pEULypEeva TpPOS TI}V
atcOnow, kal TO avTO TO pev peurypevor, edy pr) BdreT
now, 6 adrd TO wey pemrypevor, dy pi} n
6&0, te Avyxed 8 ov6e typevov) ovTe TH Sdiaipécer
ni Ag KEL cy PEMLYM Hl] p
n ral 4
@oTe OTiody Tap driody pépos, addvatoy yap ovTw diaipe-
n A xX nan n /
Ojvat. 1 ovv ovK ot pigs, 7) AEKTéoV TOdTO TAs evdEexeTaL

~

ylyvecOar mdAw. oT Oy, Os ayer, TOV OvTwY Ta pEV

‘ \ 7, 2 \ A / > \ ® 7 /
mointika Ta 8 VrO TOUTWY TaOnTLKAa. Ta peVv OVY aVTLOTpEpeEl,

b 28 mporepdv re in marg. add. F 30 Pbciperat EL Oarepov]
exatepov EJL: xaé’ éxdrepov H 32 cuvexes dé ELS! Tovrots |
toutrou E 33 ri om. FHJ a1 6re e coni. addidi aoe |
ére H 3 dra] ore H évrivaovy H: nvtiwaodv L 4 «irep
éort EFHJL: ecimep éori cai &: kat eimep cori D?: etrep kai gore
Bekker, qui cai libro H perperam attribuit oopartt] tt, supra-
scr. copa, F 5 S€o:] de, suprascr. n, F yeveo Oa F
6 tadaxicra L ovdé e coni. W. D. Ross scripsi: ovdre
EFHJL® 8 hava pepixOa in litura fecit E ov]
ovde H 10 8¢ deiy] & EL pépexrac] peptxyOa E: det pepixOat
rte L: péptxrai ru (re tamen in marg. addito) F 12 7 om. E}:
7 F nla F 13 ovdey av cvpByoerar H 15 te oév EFL:
yduxet E: Avyyet H: lynceo T ove] non I 16 adore] ovre
coni. Bekker, sed nihil mutandum 17 éort] éora F 18 maduy
yiyverOa F 8n] dé Ft épapev F7L

D2

7 es

ie)

5

36 TEP] TENESEQS KAI ®@OPASD A

, +
20 d0wv 4 avT) vAn éotl, Kal TonTiKa GAAHAWY Kal TaOnTLKa

25

30

35
328>

on

10

nan n \ € > shen
im ddAjdwv: Ta be ToLed aTAabH dvTa, Sowy pH H avTH
\ 99) ¢€ “ a
vAn. tovtwy pev ody odK €or. pléiss 510 odd 7 larpiKn Trove!
bylevay odd } bylea pryvepevyn Tots o@pacw. Tov b€ ToINTL-
KOV Kal TaOnTiKGv boa evdiaipera, TOAAG pev GAlyots Kal peE-
/ a / > tal ,, x > + n
yadda puxpois cvvTiOéueva od Troved pigw, GAN abgnow Tod
a / XN nN \
Kparoovros: eraBddAer yap Odrepov eis Td Kparody (810
n WA >
oradaypos olvov pupiors yoedow vdatos ov plyvuTat, AveTaL
c 7
yap TO eldos Kal peraBdddAc cis TO Tav Vdwp) Sray 8e
tais duvdpeow lodtn twos, Tore peTaBaAe pev ExaTEpor
Bb Ws )
an na n , ’ / X
eis TO Kparody €x THs avTod Pioews, ov yivetar b€ OareEpoy
P) \ \ \ , \ » iv4 > \ la) \
GANG peragv kal Kowdv. avepoy ovv bri éotl Tatra puKTa
doa évavtiwcow exer Tév ToLovvTay (Tatra ydp éorw ta
GAAjAwv TaOntikd) Kat puxpa O& yuKpots mapaTieueva
plyvutat paddAov, paov yap Kat Oarrov GAdAnvAa peOoracr,
TO 6& TOAv Kal bd TOAAOD xpoviws TodTo bpG. 810 Ta Eedd-
3 n n n / an
plota tov d.taipeTov Kal TaOnTiKGy puuxTa—éd.alpetras: yap
an an ¢
els pukpa Tatra padiws, Todro yap nv TO evoplotm civar—
olov Ta byp& puxTa pdALoTa TOV copdTwr: eddpioToY yap
No 2e A a a XN N , 5
paddtora TO tbypov Tov diaiperGv, av ph yAloxpov 7
( n \ \ / \ / , a \ »
(ratra yap 67 mAelw Kat pel(w pdvoy moved TOY dyKoV).
54 eee / , , x 4 \ S y
drav 6 % Oarepov povoy TmabytiKov, 7 opodpa TO b€ Tap-

Tay npeua, 7) ovdev tAretov TO puxOev e& dot 7) puKpov,

4 4 a \ ‘4 \ ‘ /

Omep cupBaive. wept Tov KatTitepoy Kat Tov xaAKov. évia

yap Weddi€erat mpos GAAnAa Tov dvTwv Kai éemapdorept-

(ei—aiverar yap mws Kal puKTa npéua Kat os Odrepov
\ \ / > 24 Ee a, 7 ,

Mev Sextixoyv Odrepov 8 eidos—érep Kal él TovTwr ovpBaiver

0 yap karrirepos os mabos ti dv avev BAns Tod xadxod

@ 22 ov om. E 23 ptyvupeva JL 24 60a €oTlv eddiaipera
F kai peydda] peyada dé F} 25 ov] ov ye vel ore E} 26 6:0]
otov L 27 xovow E 28 peraBadr\cra EL mav To H
30 avrov] avrov EF J 31 kai om. F €oTi tavta] éori supra lin.
add. F: radr’ éori EL 32 Tay om. F mowouvrwr| TowvTwy J
32-33 yap 87 tm’ add\Anrov éori EL 34 peOtoraor| peOiornow FL

b 2 ratraom. EL rou evopiorws E 5 xat add. supra lineam
ante ratra F pévov om. HJ Tov Oykoy moet F 6 érav|
67 dv} yom.F lacunam inter pdvovet maOntixdy habetJ] 4] 97 F

7 i} npéya EHL fj priusom.E oddev 7d pry dev e& (sed adiecto
méiw Supra Td, Correcto 7d, et spatio ante éé relicto) F 8 repi|
rapa H 9 Wericera J II kat om. EL 12 dy] dv E

dvev ths vAns H

10. 3284 20 — B. I. 329%6 37

oxeddov adavicera. Kal puxdeis amet xpwparioas pdvov.
Sem \ n > i, ek a ee \ / bp]
TavTo 5€ TodTo cvpBalver kai é’ Erepwv. chavepoy Tolvuy ék

Tov elpnuévov cal Gtu ore pléis cal ri éore kal dua Ti, Kal

Tola puKTa TOV ovTwV, emelmEp EoTiv Evia ToLAdTa ola Ta-
Ontixad te tw GAAnAwY Kal ebdpioTa Kal edd.aipera. Tadra
x | pe ee | / >) é / [ ae 4 : € la
yap ovr epOapOar avayxn peptypeva ovr er. Ta’Ta amTAGs
> A VA > \ 7 A BA ‘ \
eivat, ovre otvOeow eivar Thy pl atrdv, ote mpos THY
aloOnow: GdN ote puxtov pey 0 dy eddpioroy dv TaOnTLKOY 7)
Kal mountikdy, Kal TowvtTm puKxtdv (mpds duovupoy yap To
, € X ‘4 n lan 3 / e
puxtdv), 7 O& pléis TGV puxTGv GdAoLWOEevTwY Evwors.

B

Tlept pev oby pifews cal ays xal rod Tovey Kal Ta-
oxew elpnrar ms trdpxet Tois petaBddAovor Kara vou,
ér. 0& mepl yeveoews kal POopas Tis amAns, TGs Kal Tivos
éorl kal dia tly airiay: dpolws 6 Kal mepl ddAdow-
mews elpntrar, tlh TO GAAoLWvobat Kal Tiv’ exer Siadhopay ad-

26

Tay? oiTov 5é Oewpnoar Tepi TA KadOvpeEVva oTOLXEla TOV |

cwopatwv. yéveois pev yap kal pOopa macas tats dicen
ovveoTooats ovolats ovK avev TOV alcOnTav cwpudtwv. TovTwr
dé THv UroKeyernv VAnv ot pev hacw civar pilav, olov dépa
XN a“ n

TiOévres 1) Top 7] TL peTacd TovTwY, TOyd Te dv Kal xwpl-

4 ce XS / A > b ¢€ , € XN nn \ “ ¢
orov: of d& mAElw Tov dpiOyov Evds—oi pev Top Kal yy, ot
d€ radrd te Kal dépa tpirov, ot d& Kal tdwp Tov’Twy TéTap-

4 P ~ > Lm 4 \
Tov, aoTep "EymedoxAns—eE Ov ocvykpwopevor kal dvaxpwvo-
x

Mévov 7) GAXAoLovpevov ovpBalvew Thy yeveow Kal THY Oo-
pay Tois mpdypacw. Ori wey ovv TA TP@Ta apxas Kal orot-
xela KadGs exer A€yew, EoTwH oTvvoporoyovpevoy, e& Gv

b 13 kat om. E’JL, et in marg. add. F amevot] das EL: 6
mas J kal xpopariocas L 14 roivuy kal ex F 16 ola ra
maOnrixa H 17 tavra] Tra E 18 ravra] radra E: ra avira
FJ 20 6 dy] éray L: Grav pev E 21 ante wonrixdy lituram
habet J 22 €vwors. mepi pev ovv pifews kal ads Kai repli Tov
rotety kal rao xew eipnrat HJ, et (omisso pev) F* =. 26 kal mepi rou F
. 28 én ot ért kai E, d¢ in marg. addito THs amAns, was Kai

rivos J1D>: ris dads, tivos kai mas EJ?: ris amAijs xai tivos Kal
mas HL: ris rivds kat dadGs kal was (kal ante mas supra lineam
addito) FI: tijs re dmAjjs Kal tis tuvds, mos Coni. Bonitz 30 a’ray
om. F 35 riOévres om. L Tt peraév rt (Secundo tamen rx
eraso) F a3«ai]i?FHJ . 4 4] kai J, et fecitE

329°

38 IIEP] TFENESEQS KAI ®@OPAD B

{

x
petaBdAdovtwy 7) Kata otyKpiow Kal didkpiow 7) Kat’ GAAnVY
petaBodjy cupBaiver yéveow elvar kal POopdav. add’ oi pev
movobyres play UAnv mapa Ta elpnweva, Tavrnv b€ ocwpati-

10 KY Kal xwpioTny, Guaptavovow. dadvvatrov yap avev évar-
n a n x na X\
TiIbcEws Elval TO GGpua TOvTO aicOnTHs—n yap Kodpoy 7H
Bapy 7 Wrxpov 7 Oeppov avaykn elvat TO AmeEipoy Todro, 6

/ 4 > \ 3 / € Years n / /
A€yovol twes eivar Thy apxnv. os 8 & TO Tipalm yéypa-
mTal, ovdeva exer Siopicpdv. ov yap elpnke cadds TO Tav-
/ b] na / ION a 9 / /
15 Oexés, ef ywplCerat TOY aTolxelwy, ovde yxpHTat ovdev, py-
oas eivat broKelyevov TL Tois KaAovpEevols oToLXEloLs TpdTEpor,
olov xpvodv tots épyous tols xpvoots (kalro. Kal todro od
n / n \ , s b) > #® x
KaA@s A€yeTat TovTOV TOV TpoTOV AEyouevoy, GAN @V MEV
dAdolwos, €oTW ovTws, av O& yéveois Kal POopd, addvarov
20 €kelvo TpooayopeverOar €€ ov yeéyover—xairor yé dyou pa-
n 3 / te x / Pua sf r \
Kp® GAnbéorarov eivar ypvodv A€yew Exacrov etvat), GAG
TOV oTOLXElwy OVTWY OTEPE@Y EXPL ETUTEOWY TOLEiTAL THY
ep 257 ok , ore \ ,
avahvow, addvvatov S€ Thy TLOnvnY Kal THy bAnv Tv mpe-

XN 3 7 € “ XN ~ X\ Ky / v4
Thy Ta etiteda Elva. nets O€ hayev prev eivai Tuva VAnV
an , n b n >) \ / > \ rd >
25 TOV Tw_aTwY ToV alcOnT@v, GAAG Tav’THnY OV xwpLoTHV AAA
del per evavTidcews, €€ as ylverat Ta Kadovpeva cToLXEia
dudpiora S& wept a’TGv ev Erépois AxpiBéorepoy. ov jv GAN
émred1) Kal TOV TpdmoV Tovrdy éoTLY ek THs VANS TA TopaTa
Ta TpOTa, Stopiotéoy kal Tepl TovTwY, apxiv pev Kal TPe-
30 THY olopevors etvar THY BAnv THY Ax@ploTOY pev HroKELpE-
XS n 5 ¥ y x \ \ ivA n a
pnv d& Tots évaytiows (obre yap Td Oeppdv tAn TS Woxpd

+ na a na >) ‘ Vv c 4 P) n ¢
ovre TodTo TO OepuO, GAAA TO troKelwevoy Apoiv), Sore
mp@Tov pev TO dvvayer copua alcOnrov apxy, Sevrepov 8
ai évavtidcets, A€yw 8 olov Oepudrns Kal Wvyxpdrns, tplrov
>] na na na \
35 0 dn mip kat tdwp kal Ta Towadra. Tatra pev yap

@7 peraBaddvroy L kai] 7) E a@\Anv rua F Il aicOnris]

aig@nrév E: 16 aigOntév F: aicOnroy ov L 14 dwwpicpdy J
15 ovdév] ovdevi EH 17 kai om. L 18 Gdn’ dv]
a@Anrov E 20 ékeivo mpoaayopever Oar] Keivo mpos éxeivo
dyopeverOa E? ef] ap’ F 24 pev om. FHJLe! 25 Tay
capdtwv om. &! 27 érépois] dAdo B} 28 émeidy| érei E
29 pev om. F?J mparoyv F'HJ 30 olopévovs EJ: oidpevos #1
31 ovre] ov (addito re supra lin.) J 7rdo0om.H 32 ovre] ovde
E: ovre d¢ H 34 aiom. E: ai mpéra T évavriwots E
kai om. E tpiras EJ 35 5 dn] d€ dua fecit E: d€ as

70n H

I. 329% 7 — 2. 329% 29 39

petaBadre eis GdAndAa, Kal odx @s "Eumedoxdfjs Kal 329%

Erepo. A€yovow (od yap dv jv ddAolwors), ai 8 evavrid-

gels ov peTraBddAovow. GAN’ oddey Frrov Kal ds, odpyaros
/

molas kal méocas Aexréov apxdas; of pev yap dddou sro-

a na

Oéuevot xpGvrat, Kat ovdéy A€yovor Sa th atta. 7 To-

oavra.

"Ere ody (ytoduev aicOntod cdpatos apxds, todro 8
> . c n ce < > @ i4 yy € yd A ir4 >
€oTly anTov, amtrov 6 ov y alcOnois adn, davepov sre od
Taca. at eévavTidcets oapatos edn Kal apxas tTowtvow,
>] SS , e X\ ‘ c od > 3 , 4 \
GAAG povoy at xara tHv adv: kar evavtiwcly te yap
dia€epovet, Kal Kata amriy evavtiwow. 616 ovre AevKdrns

\ / BA 4 X\ , £ ? > OK
kal pedavia ovre yAvKUTNS Kal muiKpOoTys, Opolws 8 ovde
Tov dAAwv TéV alcOnTGv evavTidcewy oddev TrOLE. OTOLXELOV.

, , yy 4 Lal v4 >," \ ¢€ a ,
kairo. mpdrepov dis ads, dore Kal TO troKelpevov Tpd-
Tepov' GAN ovK eoTt Tepatos anTod dos i antov, adda

e] e \ b] a4 n VA , x, A \
kad’ €repov kat ei ervxe TH poe. mpdrepov. aitay i)
Tov anTav Siapereov Tota. mpGtat diadopat kat évav-
tTidoes. lol 8 evavTidcers Kata tTHv adi aide, Oep-

Mov Woxpdv, Enpov svypdv, Bapt Koddov, cKAnpdov padakdv,

yAloxpov Kpadpoy, tpaxd detov, maxd AeTTOv. TovTwy Fe
\ XS \ n > XN Or > \ n
Bapv pev Kat Kodvghov ob ToinTiKd ovde TaOnTLKd ov yap TO
~ e XK / ae ae Bee , n \
Touely TL ETEPOY 7) TAaTXELY Up ETEpov AEyovTal, Set SE TOLN-
\ \ \ be Pe / XS ~ ¢
TUKa «Kal TadnTiKad elvat AAANAwWY TA oToOLxEla, plyvuTaL
yap kal peraBddAe eis GAAnAa. Oepyov dé Kal wWoxpov
\ & \ + C= a XS X n bs 9 \ de n
kal €npov Kat vypov Ta pev TO TownTiKa civar Ta b& TO
maOntika A€yeraur Oepyov yap éoT. TO ovyKpivoy Ta dpuo-
n a A ny
yevn (ro yap duakpivew, Smep act moeiv TO Top, ovy-
a >
Kpliveww éotl Ta SuddvdAa—ovpBaiver yap eEaupety Ta ad-
. na ,
Adrpia), Woxpdv Se 1d ovvdyov Kal ovyKpivoy duolws Ta.

bi as|aomrep S! =. 2 od del F: odd HL ~~ ai 8] Erv ai fecit E
3 katosFHJL: xcaifecitE 5 ovdevy]oideF rijrif JL 8 70m.F

Q oaparos tidy] coparos delendum notat et ¢iSn ex 76n (ut videtur) -

fecit] -§ 10 pdéva FHJ Il Kata thy antny F 12 yAukérns J
13 Toy post dAd\o@v om. FH] 16 87] de FL 17 tav] mp@rov
> mpatov tov F*L: mp@rov kal trav F* moiat 7 mp@rat HJ _

18 efot 8 €vavtimoes in marg. add. F 19 bypov Enpdv F 21 To]

ro J 22 €repov] mpdrepov E hloiderm@ F — Aéyeraa FL

23 kal... ddAjA@y]| GAAHA@Y Kal maOnTiKd eivar F : etvae GAANAoY kai

maOnrika L iywvrat yap] yiyverat yap kal piyyuraa FH 25, dypov
kal Enpov EL T® prius om. E 29 dpoiws ante xai ponit L

40 MEPI TENESEQ> KAI ®OOPAS B

30 TE ovyyerh Kal Ta pr Spuddvdca, typdv be TO adpioroy

35

330"

I

I

20

on

°

on

oikelm Spw eddpiorov dv, Enpdv Se 7d ebdpictov pwev olKelw
Spo, dSvodpictov bé. 7d be AeTTOv Kal Tmaxd Kal yAloxpor
kal kpadpoy Kal oxAnpdv kai padakdy kal ai GdAdAa dia-
opal ek rotrwv. émel yap TO dvatAnoTikdy eort Tov dypod
d1a TO pr) wploOar pev eddpioroy 8 eivar Kal axoAdovbety TO
antouevm, TO Se AenTdov dvatAnotikdy (AeTTOpEpes yap, Kal
\ XX > 4 v4 X\ [4 & \
TO plKpomepes avatAnotiKov? OAov yap OAov amTETaL, TO
d& Aenrov pddtocra Toodrov), gavepdv Sri Td pev emroy
€orat Tod bypod TO S& Taxd Tod Enpod. ddA be Td prev yAl-
oXpov Tod vypod (rd yap yAloypov bypdy TemovOds Ti eori,
otov To €Aaov) Td 5& Kpadpov tod Enpod: Kpatpoy yap rd
Tehéws Enpdv, Bote kal memnyévar dC eddAeupw vypdrnros.
BA \ S BY a € an \ %, \ € ~
ért TO pey padakdy Tod typod (uadakdy yap TO trelKov
5) € \ \ \ 4 : a € , \
eis €avTo Kal pn peOiordpevov, OmEep Toted TO bypdv—bd.0d
\ > x » ees ~' / 3 \: \ \ na ¢ na
Kal ovk €oT. TO bypov padakdyv, GAAG TO padakov Tod bypod)
\ XN \ nN na \ 3 , \
TO 6€ okAnpdv Tod Enpod* oKAnpdov ydp éoTL TO TEemNyds, TO
d€ mennyos Enpdv. déyerar Se Enpdv kal typoyv mAeovayds*
avrixerrat yap TO &EnpO Kal 7rd tbypov Kal Td diepdv, Kal
madw TS typ@ Kal 7d Enpov Kal Td wemnyds, Amavta se
tabr éotl rod Enpod Kal rod bypod Tov mpdrwv dex OévTor.
> \ iS b) “A n” \ / \ \ / >
evel yap avtiketrat T® diep@ Td Enpdv, Kal diepdy pev ore
TO é€xov dddorplay stypdérnra émumodfs, BeBpeyyévov Se 7d
els BdOos, Enpdv be 7d eorepnuévov tavrns, pavepov Sri Td
Bev dvepov éxrat Tod typod, rd 8 dvrixeluevov Enpov Tod mpH-
tws €npod. mddrdw b& 7d typdv cat TO memnyds aoatrws:
€ \ X\ / \ > 'd € , > ~
vypov pey yap éott TO exov olkelay bypdrnta ev TS Baber
/ \ ,
(BeBpeypevovy be rd exov GAdorplay typérnra), memnyds de

b 31 bv] 8€ddXorpiasH rd. eddptorov] rd ddpiorov E 32 max]

maxutepoy E 33 kat oxAnpov om. J: Kal rd oxAnpor L a@\Xat
ai E & I Aerropepes] pexpopepées L, et (ut videtur) 6° 4 €ora}
gore L 7 &npdv J*, supra lineam tamen scripsit oxAnpdv J?
oixeias vypérnros T 8 rod vypov padakoy om. E post typod
add. ré d€ oxAnpoy rod Enpod F 9 py om. EJ bid... 10 bypov
om, E 10 ovk ort] ovxére L II oxAnpdy yap] Enpdy yap E
14 de] 8) EF 17 d\dorpiay éxov J 19 mpateas| mparov
FHL 20 de] 6) F 21 yap om. F €xov tiv oixeiay F

év T@ Baber om. F 22 BeBpeypéevoy . ++ vypdrnra om. HL: BeBpey-
pévov d€ rd Exov Gddorpiav bypérnra év to Baber in marg. (prima
tamen manu) ponit J 22 post typérnra add. év r@ Baber EF (cf.
etiam J)

3

2, 329% 30 — 3. 330? 16 41

\ > / 4 td \ /, 2 \ \ \ a
TO eorepnpevoy TatTns, ore Kal Tov’Twy earl rd pev Enpod
TO 5€ vypod. dhdrov rolvey Sri. aca ai ddrAdAaL diadopai
dvdyovra. eis Tas mpweTas TérTapas, atrar be ovKére els
> BY > \ ‘ 4 € \ \ , x
éddrrovs: ovre yap TO Oepydv Srep bypov 7) Sep Enpdv, ovre
, a

TO vypov Sep Oeppov 7H Sep Woxpdv, ore TO Woypdv Kal
TO Enpov ov bm GAAnr’ oO jd 7d Oepydv Kal Td typdv
clow: dot dvayKn Tértapas elvar Tavras.

25

’"Emel S€ TérTapa Ta oTolxela, Tov Se TeTTrdpwr ef 30

ai ovéedéers, Ta 8 evavria ob TéduKe orvdvdcerbar (Oep-
5s, \ \ A > »' > Joan." \ , 4 \ A
pov yap kal yuxpdv elvat TO aitd kal madw typorv kat
Enpov addvarov), pavepov Sri Térrapes Eoovra ai TGv orot-
/ 4 ca \ nN \ € n \ an \
xelov ovledEers, Oeppod Kal Enpod, cal typod Kal Oeppyod, Kal
an * n \ n Set ¢e n ‘ b}
maAw Yuxpod Kal Enpod, cal uxpod Kal bypod. Kat 7Ko-
ovOnxe Kata Adyov Tois AmAots Pawopevors coepact, Tupl
\ ; ws \ cf \ na 4 ~ XN fa) \ \
Kat dept Kat Boat. Kal yf. TO pev yap Tip Oeppov Kal
, c > a. \ % ig , > \ XX c > yd
Enpdv, 6 8 anp Oeppov kcal typdv (ofov drpls yap 6 dnp),
TO 8 tdap Woxpdv kal bypdov, 7 & yn Wrypdv Kat Enpor,

wor evtrAdyws SiavéverOar tas diahopas Tois paras oo-

N ‘ n + Pe, > X , ef
pact, Kal TO mAnOos airdv elvat Kata Adyov. anavtes
yap of Ta GMAG GopaTa oToLxEia ToLodyTES of meV EV, Ot
d& dvo, of 5& Tpla, of b& rérrapa Towdtow. oor pev ody
a , , om , \ , =
év podvoy d€yovow, eira TuKVecer Kal pavecer TAAAA yev-
n a / \
veo, Tovros ovpBalver d0o ToLety Tas apxds, TO TE pavor
\ \ \ x \ \ \ BY , a \ x
Kal TO muKvov 7) TO Oepyov Kal TO Woxpdv—raira yap Ta
n 5 . 9? 3A
Snptoupyobvra, TO 8 ev badKerrar KaOdmep Ayn. of 8 EvOds
na n fad \
dito rowodvres, Sonep Tlapyevidns mip Kal yyy, Ta perakd
a c 4,
plypara mowder Tovtwy, olov dépa Kal Vdwp, woavtws be
a ,
Kal of tpla A€yovtes (kabamep TlAdrwy & tais dvaipéceow,

&@ 23 €or] éora FHL Enpod] vypod J 24 vypov] Enpod J
26 ro supra lin. add. F vypor | yruxpdv (suprascr. Enpov) F r Enpdv]
bypdv F =—s- 28 ov8’ =... odd E 0 post kai om. F 29 etvat Tav-

330°

tas| avras eivaa H 30 ered) 66 FHL = racom. L 32 vypoy |

kat Enpdv] Enpdy kai bypov EL 34 Kal Enpov ... Oeppod om. F, qui
tamen kal £npov Geppovd cai éypod in marg. add. kal vypod Kal Beppov]
kal beppod kai vypod E: Wvypou caliypou L = b 1 mddwom. L, supra
lin. add. F Wvxpod prius] Oeppov L = Enpod E?HJ : typod E*FL
kat Yruxpod E*HJL: cat énpot E'F kat vypod E?HJ: xai Yuxpov
E}, et supra lin. add. F: xai-énpov L = jxodovdnoe HL 4 Oeppos
kaitiypésL 5, kal... uxpdvom.E = 6 véeperOar E: diahepec Oa
Ft 8 yap] & L 10 Aéyovar pdvov F 12 7d (ter) om. L
raom. EF1HJ 15 ante ptypara scripsit pe E? 16 tpeis L

20

331"

5

10

42 TIEPI TENESEQ> KAI ®OOPAS B

Q \ / an val \ \ > ae / fed
TO yap pécov piypa trove) Kal cyeddv ratTa A€yovow oi
te Ovo Kal of tpla movodyTes, TARY of pev TEpvovoly eis dvO
TO pécov, of & ey pdvov Trowdow. vio. 0 evOds TéTTapa eE-

> nn / XN \ e > > A
yovow, olov “EpmedoxAns* ovvayer d€ Kal ovTos els Ta dvO,

a 4 an
TO yap mupt TadAAa Tdvra dytiTiOnow. ovbK ETL b€ TO Tip

an cal /
kal 6 dnp kal éxacrov rév elpnuevwv aAody, GAAG puKTA.

X > c a a / b] > / t ea! A \
Ta 8 amda Towadra pév eotw, ov pevTor TavTda, olov TO

n A oY / > na \ \ an » ae A ?

TS Tupl Guowoy Tupoeidés, ov Tp, Kal TO TO GEplL GEpoe-
an nN ‘\

dés* duotws 5& kaml TGV GAAwY. TO b€ TIP eoTLY brEpBodAy
Oepudrntos, aomep Kal Kp¥oraddAos wWoxpdrntoss 7 yap
més Kat » Céors bmepBodal twes elow, ) pev Woxpdrn-
Tos, 7) 5€ Oeppdrnros* ei ody 6 KpvoTadAds eo. THELS bypod Kal
a ‘ \ a , an . nn \ 4 OX
Wvyxpod, kai TO Top €orar Céors Enpod Kal Oeppod (616 kal ovdev

ISIS 4 M4 ¥ 9 9 , x de a
our ek KpvaoTaddov ylyverat ovT ex Tupds). OvTwy dé TeTTAPwY
TOV aTAGY Tw"dTwV, Exdtepa Toiv dvoiy Exarépov Tov Td-

an a /
mov eotiv (rip pev yap Kal aijp Tod mpos Tov Gpov pepowevov,

a ss \ @ a \ \ / Ny Oe S \ >
yn 6& kal timp Tod mpds Td péoov), Kal akpa pev Kal €idAL-
Kpweotata mip Kal yn, péoa S& Kal peptypeva paddov*
e 4 LA X € / Orn € / 3 7 \ XS
vowp Kal anp* Kal exarepa O€ ExaTEpois EevavTia—mTupl MeV
yap evavriov tdwp, aép. d€ yn, Tatta yap éx Tov évarvTioy

/ / 3 x 2 > #£ na / ya,
TaOnuatwyv ovverTnkey. ov pry GAN aTAOS ye TETTAPA OVTA
na a a Xx an
Evos ExaoTov eoTi, yn pev Enpod padrdrov 7 Wryxpod, Bdwp se
a Tad A e€ Pig SN 2 an vad a na a
Wuxpod padrrAov 7 vypod, anp 5 vypod padAov 7H Oeppyod, mvp

AY a rad x a

dé Oepuod padAov 7 Enpod.

"Emel 5€ Siudpicrat mpdrepov Sti Tots amAois cbpacw 4

e€ dhAndov 7 yéveois, Ga Se Kal. kata rHv alcOnow
gpalverar ywdpeva (od yap dv jv ddAdolwois* Kata yap Ta
TOV antav 7a40n 7H GAdrolwols éortw), AEKTéov Tis 6 TpdTOS
Ths els GAAnda petaBodrjs, kal mérepov dmav e& Gmavros

b 18 of prius om. EF “19 d€ kai edOds FHL 20 oiov]
aorep L: ws (ut videtur) E? dé] yap fecit E 21 mdvra radda
HJL ovk €ott] ovKere F 22 60m. E puxta] puxrév L
23 tavta] roaira E 70] et tt E: quod quidem igitur (= 16 yovv?)
r 24 ov... depoedes in marg. add. F 26 kai om, Jo!
28 vypotv yuxpod E 29 Enpovd Oeppod E: Oeppod kai Enpod FHL

30 ex utrumque om. E 31 éxarepa EJ’: éxdrepoy FHJ1L
dveiy L Toray] mpotreov EJT 32 yap om. E‘'JT 33 «idu-
Kpivn F 34 yn Kal nip Jol ai d¢om. EL 3 ye om. F,
post 4 évds ponit o! 4 pev yap Enpod FHJ Wuxpod fecit E

5 Wuxpor J i) prius om. E 9 ra om. E? Io 7 om, EF

ee a Pee ee oe

36 330217 — 4. 331>7 43

> ae
ylyverOa. duvarov 7 Ta pev dvvardy Ta 8 dddvarov. bri
pev ody Gmavra mépuxey els GAAnAa peraBdddrew, dave-
/ € , / > 3 ro eee 3 / > \
pov. 1 yap yeveois els évavtia kal é€ évaytiwv, ra b& cro-
xela TavTa éxer evavtiwow mpds GAAnAa bia TO Tas dua-
gopas évavrias eivar. Tots pev yap ayddrepar évavtias,
ofov mupi Kat dati (ro ev yap Enpov kal Oeppdov, 7d 8
¢ \ - , an > € i4 / 4 e > Sal \
bypov Kal wWoyxpdv), trois & 7 érépa pdvov, olov dépr kal
ivA \ XS \ € \ \ , a X\ € \ \
Bdart (ro pev yap typdv Kal Oepudv, rd Se ypov Kal Wr-
, v4 4 \ \ v4 Lad 3 aS /
xpév) wore Kabddov pev avepdyv ot. wav ek mavtods yé-
veoOar mépuxer, 75n 5é Kal? Exaorov od xadeTov idelv Tos—
dnavra pev yap e@€ andvrwyv ~ora, diolcer b& TO OarTov
Bpadvrepoy kal TO pdov Kal yademe@repoy. boa pev
yap €xer ovpPBora mpos GAAnAa, Taxeia To’TwY 7) peETa-
id XN \ tal ~ . crs te \ &
Baots, doa 5 py exet, Bpadeta, dia 7rd paov eivar TO ey
by
7) TA TOAAA peTaBaddArAcw—olov ex Tupds pev eoTat arp
Oarépov jetaBadAovros (TO pev yap nv Oepuov Kat Enpor,
\ XN \ \ ¢ / c a \ \: € 2h an
To O€ Renner kat vypdv, woTe av RPaOeR TO Enpov b1d Tob
Dypoo dino gora), mddAw 6& e& dépos dwp, av xpa-
TO TO denne? 070 TOU HUXpoo uae pev yap jv Oeppov
kal typdv, TO S€ Yoxpdv Kal typdv, dote petaBdaddov-
~ Lol cf 54 \ 3, NX XN / \ 3
Tos To Oeppod tdwp ora). Tov adrovy 5€ tpdmov Kai é€
of a Me te a a N ¥ \ ¥
bdaros yh Kal ek yns mip. exer yap dudw mpds ap-
gw actpBora> TO pev yap Bdwp typdv Kal wWoryxpdr, 7
d& yn Wuxpov kal Enpdv, wore kparnOevtos Tod typod yi
€orat, kal mddw eémel TO pev mip Enpdv kal Oeppov, H Se
an a n 4
yn Woxpov xal Enpdv, eav POaph To Woxpdv, wip Eorat €k
ys. ore pavepov bri KUKAw TE EoTaL 7 yeveots TOis amAots
a a fad \
THUATL, Kat patos ovTos 6 Tpdmos Tijs meTAaBoATs O14 TO
* n a \ \
ovpBora evuTdapxew Tots epeEjs. ex mupds b€ bdwp kal
a an / \ ce
ef depos ynv Kal mddw e€ tdaros kal ys dépa Kal wip
\ ,
evdexeta pev yiveoOa,. xadevm@repovy S& dia TO TAELOYoV

civa. THY peTaBoAnv. dvdykn yap, ei eorar €€ BdaTos Tip,

a14 7 pevyap FH] 1 5 éxet mavra J evavrioors E16 dp-
porépous L ‘ 17 Ocppov kal Enpdv EL 18 7] 7 F 19 Wuxpov
kai vypév H 22 yap om. F 23 To] Td J 24 cvpBorov F
25 éxne (sed ne in Iitura) J 27 Barépov] Garroy L 29 d¢ om.
vdop €orar eay F ay J 30 Rid iypoy kal Oeppdsy HJ
32 d€ om. F 34 yap om. F bi ayFHJ * 2 teom.L
éora om. EJ 4 ovpBororv F 5 €& prius om. F

20

30

331°

5

Io

I

an

20

25

30

35

332°

44 NEPI TENESEQS KAI ®OOPAS B

pOapnva kat Td Wrypov Kal Td bypdv, kal madrw ei ex
yns dnp, pOaphvar cal To Woryxpov kal rd Enpdv' aoad’rws
de cal ef €x mupds Kal d€pos Ddwp Kal yn, avdykn yap dp-
, e > ee be / A /
porepa petaBddrew. airn pev ovty xpoviwrépa 7 yéveois*
éav & éxarépov Odrepov POaph, pdwv pév, odx els GAAnAQ
de % perdBaows, GAdX’ éx mupds pev Kal Bdaros 2orar yi
\ Bed Pl] be 4 S \ Lod nn % @& id X ‘
kal dnp, @€ depos d€ Kal ys mop Kal towp. Sray pev yap
Tod tdaros POaph TO Wuxpov Tod 5& mupds 7d Enpdy, aijp
+ / s n s A \ n X \ €
gorau (AcimeTrar yap Tod pev TO Oepuov tod de 7rd dypdr),
ing X a S \ \ \ a > S: £ , ~
dray 5€ TOU wey TUpos TO OEppov Tod d Hdaros TO vypdv, yf
d1a TO AclmecOa TOD pev TO Enpov Tod dé TO Wuypdrv. waad-
X \ be \ ~ “ 4 vA ir4 X ‘
tTws d€ Kal @€ dépos kal yns mip Kal Bdwp: bray pev yap
Co eg Ay 4 n \ \ ” XS ~ \ , v4 4
Tov dépos Pbaph To ee THS nes ys TO Enpdv, pies EoTOL
x an € “~
(Acimerar yap Tod pev TO bypdov THs 5& TO Wuyxpdv), bray
d& Tod pev depos TO bypov THs 5& ys TO \ryxpdr, Top bid
TO AcimecOar Tod pev, TO Oeppov rhs be TO Enpdv, amep iv
mupds. dpwodoyoupévn 5€ Kal TH aicOjoe 7 TOD TUpds yeveE-
gist pdAwTa pev yap mip » pdAd&, atrn 8 orl Kamvos
katdpevos, 6 d& Kamvds e€ dépos Kal ys. év Be Tots ede-
Ens obx evdéxerat pOapévros év Exarépw Oarépov tv crot-
xelwv yeverOar perdBacw els ovde tév cwpdtwrv bia Td
AelrecOar ev dudoty 7 Tavita 7 ravavria—ee odderépwv Se
eyxwpel ylyverOat cGya—otov ei pev tod tupds POapeln Td
Enpov, Tod & dépos Td bypdv (Aelmerar yap év dudoiy rd
Oeppdv), éav & e& Exarépov 7d Oepydv, Aelmerar ravavria,
Enpov Kal vypdv. dpolws b& Kal év rots dAdo ev Grace
yap trois epe&js evuTdpyer TO ev tavrd 7d 8 évayrTior,
dof dua dpdov Gri ra pev e& vos eis ev peraBalvovra
évos POapevtos yivera, Ta 8 x Svoiv eis ev TAEWvav. sre
wey ovv dimavta ex mavros ylyvetrat, kal tiva tpomov eis
ddAnAa petaBaors ylyverat, etpynrar
b Io mupds.. . yq] yns kat Vdaros wip Kai anp H: eadem habet J,
qui tamen (prima ut videtur manu) zupds kai dépos td@p suprascr.
dvaykn om. E: dvayxaiov H yap] ra E: om. L 12 av F
pOap7y Oarepov E paov Lol 13 peraBaorts] petaBorn (sed o cor-
recto) E: rovrav peraBaois HJ! ~—15 row prius] rovro vel rov re E
17 yj om, E 18 yuxpor rod dé 7d Enpdy L 21 vypor]
Wuypov E Ths| rov E Wuxpdv] iypdy E drav dé om. E
23 irorkcimecOa.H ris|rouEHJ 24 npostmupdsponitJ? 25 7
Pr6E wip H 26 kadpevos 28 ovder] év F 29 ovderépov F
30 rovupevL 34 eeéns| Ens FHJ = rairov FL 36 Sueiy L

4. 33158 — 5. 332% 29 45

ov pay GAN ert Kal Ode Oewpjowpev mept adrov.

n na / a

el yap éot. Tév gvoikGv copdtwv brn, oonep kal doxet

> ry 4 cf \ oN \ \ ny > / 4 *

evios, Bdwp Kal anp Kal Ta Towadra, dvdyKn frou ev 7

na BY

dvo elvat Tatra 7) TAelw. ev pev bn TdvTa ody oldy Te,
t > Fs a * od x a XK n ¥ e

olov dépa mdavra. 7 twp 7 Tip 7 yhv, elmep 7 pera-

‘ 3 l4 \ 4 red > XS € / °
Bod} eis tavaytia. ef yap «ein anp, ei pev tropéver, ad-
Aolwots ora GAN ov yeveois (dua 8 odd’ obrw doxe?, dore
Xx an

Bdwp elvar Gua Kal dépa 7) GAN’ Sriodv) ~orar by Tis evay-
: :

tlwois kal diahopa fs e€er te Odrepoy pédpioy, TO Tip olov

: + an
Oepuornta. GAAG pay ovK Eotar TO ye Tip anp Oeppds:
dAdoiwais Te yap TO Tovwdroy, Kal ov gdaiverar. Gua sé
/ > » b n \ 9. fF n n ; > ,
maAw €l €oTar €k TOU mupds ap, TOD Oepyod eis Todvavriov
BA € , + n > dea A a pee
petaBdddovtos ora tmaper dpa TS dépi TovTo, Kal éora

°

6 dnp Wrypdév m1, ote advvatoy TO Tip dépa Oeppoy et- -

val, Gua yap TO avTo Oeppov Kal Wrypov éorat. Ado TL

dp duddrepa TO avtd €ora, Kal GAAn Tis BAN KownH. 6

8 atrés Adyos wept amdvrwv, Sti oi Eotw ey TovTwr e&

e X > X\ +93 + / ‘\ n

ov Ta mavTa. ov pry ovd GAO Ti ye Tapa Tadra, olor

t ie 4 Log Ce ls \ , be eae an

pécov Ti depos Kal Bdaros 7 depos Kat Tupds, Gépos pev

Taxvtepov kal mupds, Tov d& AemTOTEpoyy EoTaL yap ap

kal mop éxeivo pet evavtidtntos. GAG oTEpynots TO ErEpov

Tov évavtioy, dot ovbK evdéxeTar povodcbat éxeivo ovd€éToTE,

/

aonep pact twes TO Gmeipov Kal TO meEpiexov: dpolws dpa
¢ ca) , x Io / > > aN b , ,

OTioby TovTwY 7H ovdEev. ei ov pndév aicOynToY ye TpdTEpoV
a XK !

TovTwy, Tatra dv ein mdvta* avdyKn Toivuy H del pévovta

x x

kat dyeraBdAnra eis GAAnAa 7 peraBdddAovTa, Kal 7

x a
dmavra, 7) Ta pev ta 8 ov, womep ev TO Tyaiw [ldAa-

a 3 Gewphooper E 4 éori tt trav PB! kai om. F, et delendum

20

notat J 5-6 év eiva ) dv0 tadra F 6 7) mAEi@] meio 7) E?
7 mavra in marg. add. F eirep om. E 9 ot] ny E: qv J
aote ovd’ dap J 10 dépa] anp EFL 11 dvadopa] Pbopa J

re om. J 70 Tup otov] otov ro wip fort. legendum 12 ye om. E, —
ante ré ponit L 13 O€ kai makw H 14 rov prius om. EL

15 rovro ante dpa ponit F, ante r@ ponunt HJ¢! 16 Oeppov
dépa EL 18 ap’] dpa wap F'HJLT I9 6r1 om. E 20 Ti
om. E ye om. Lo! mapa tavta] map’ avira J 22 kal] i)
EFH d¢ DAav HF anp yap E . 23 €keivo ante 22 anp
ponit F évavridrntos| évayriacews 24 ékeivo povotaba F

26 7 om. EL ovdér] ovdev dpxn F (cf. &°): ovdév padrov anp
i) wip L ye om. L 27 avaykn| avaykaiov H 7 om, E

29 mavra FHJ év] kai €v H

46 ITEPI TENESEQS> KAI ®@OPAS B

30Twv eypayev. Sti pev tolvey peraBdddAEew dvdyKn eis GA-

f
Anda d€éderxrar mpdrepov, Kal dtu & ovy Spolws Taxéws dAdo
é€ ddXov [elpnra. mpdrepov|, or. Ta pev exovta ctpBorov
Oarrov ylverar €€ GdAnAwY, TA 8 ovK exovta Bpadvrepov.

> XN / € 3 , / 2 ? + a /
ei wey Tolvuy 7 evavTidryns pla éotl Kal iv peraBdddovow,

3 If 4 5S c S v4 \ fe 2 >

35 avaykn dvo evar 7 yap bAn TO pecov avatcOnros ovoa
332) Kai axopioros. ere 5€ TAElw Sparta dvTa, dvo ay elev al
ehaxtorat. dvo 8 otodyv odx ofdy re tpla elvat, GAAG Tér-
Tapa, @otep daiverau' Tocatrar yap at avtvyia, e€
A b) an i (& 2) 4 / \ N 3 / >
yap ovoGyv tas dvo advvatoy yeverOar dia TO évavtias éi-
> / x XN » U4 4 , [v4 by
vat aAAjAals. TEpl wey odv TOUTwWY ElpnTaL TpOTEpoV: OTL O,

tn

évevon) = pretaBaddovow els GAAnAa, advvarov dpynv Tiva
a Se ban NS aN rn » x f Ps n 5 onA NX
elval avTav 7) emt TO Akpw 7) péow, ex TOvdE SHAov. ent
na a XN an
pev obv Tots akpois ovK €orat, bru Top eoTar 7 yh TavTa,
Nin 3k > 48 , a / > \ N a 9S /
Kal 0 autos AOyos T@ davat Ek Tupos H ys eElvat Tavra:
v4 > IQOX / e an 2 XN x 3 ~
10 OTL 6 ovde pEcovV—aaoTeEp Soke TLTWW anp pev Kal els Top
peTaBadrAew Kal eis Hdwp, Bowp dé Kal els dépa Kal els yay,
Ta 0 €oxata ovKeTe els GAANAG—xxx. Sel pev yap orivar
\ XN Df + Le) Pw eee J > he bh be € /
Kal pay els Gmreipov tovro iévar én’ ebOeias ed Exdrepas
bY X 2 , Pee A) C228 ot Cotgueae ey we) e@
anelpor yap evavtioryntes él Tod évds Evovta. yy ed ©
> © ® a e
151, towp ep o T, ap ep o A, sip ép 6 TI. ed 8H 70
A peraBadder eis ro IL kal Y, évavridrns éora: rév A TI.
€oTw Tadra AevKdrns Kal peAavia. mddw ee eis TO T TO
BA
A, €orat GAAn* ov yap ratré 76 T kal II. éorw 81) npo-

-_

mms Kal vypdrns, TO wey EB Enpdrns, ro be YT dyporns.

@ 30 et 35 dvaykn| avaykxaiov H 30 dvdykn post roivuy ponit I,
post ddAnha F 31 Sédecxrau] eipnraad! xaiom.FHJL = 32 elpn-
Tat mpdrepoy Seclusi 35 avaicOnros ovca] avaicOnrovsa J = I. ai

om. F? 2 ovoey HY (cf. 6°, Vitelli 244. 3): dvrav EFJL rpial
tpeis FJ? 3 paivovra EL 6 a@Anral Aa E 7 TO akpov 7
pecov F 8 wavta] ra ravra Ol 9 te]rs FH] ava i) ek
yas etvat HJ: etvar kai yns F: i) e& dépos etvar B& = 10 Sarrep] oiov HJ Bl

II peraBaddct cal vdep J I2 post adAnda excidisse dyAov vel ex

ravde Sndov suspicor yap om. F 13 py] ovn. HJ 14 yap ai
FHJ ep’ 3] ef’ 7 corr. supra lin. J? 15 oYJoouvH el]
eret L 16 ro om. EL kat évavtidrns L 17 post pedavia
vyriaulr
vravI lod A
| | | | | , etin marg.(primatamenm.) Aev ME oI, add. J
®@ K EHP

ba
ei] emet FHJ 18 kai] r@ fecit E 67] d¢é EHJL

Se 332" $0 —— 333" 13 47

ovkoby ei pev péver TO Aevkdv, bape. TO Vdwp typdv Kal 20
Aevkdv, ef S& pu}, weAav Eorat Td Bdwp" els Tdvavtia yap
x Kx

) petaBody davdykn dpa 7 AevKov 7 péday elvar TO Hdup.
o X \ a ¢€ , \ an \, jet -@- 9
€orw 57 TO mpGrov: dpolws roltvuy kat 7G II ro EZ txdp-

¥ , 4 \ n n \ ‘\
fe. » Enpdérns. ora dpa Kat 7S Il 7G mvpl peraBory
eis TO tdwp: evavtia yap trdpxye, TO yey yap Top TO 25
mp@tov pédav jv, emeta de Enpdv, rd 8 wp sypor,
éeira de AevKdv. avepov oy Gri Tacw e€ drAAHAwY eoraL
¢€ / \ 3 , 4 lrg ‘ . nm n fol
) wetaBodyn, Kal em ye tovrwy Sri cat & TO T rh yh
timapée. Ta Aowta Kal Sto otpBora, TO péAav Kal TO
¢€ , fal XN > YA i da v4 > >]
vypov: Tatra yap ov ovvdedvactal mw. Gri & els dmepov 30
ovx oldp 7 lévat, Omep peAAnoavres Selfew ml TodTo eu-
mpoobev 7rAOowev, SHAOV ex TOvde. El yap TaAW TO Top,
ép © II, eis GAAo peraBadret Kat pi dvaxdywe, olor
eis TO WV, évaytidrns tis TO Tupl Kal TO VY AAAn trapéer
Tov elpnuevav: ovdevt yap TO abro tréKeirar Tov TY A IT 35
\ 4 \ nm XS *~ fal S \ \ \
To WY. €otwm Oy TO pev II ro K, To 6€ Y ro B. 70 67 K 333°
macw wtmapfer trois TY ATI, peraBdddovor yap eis aar-
Anha—dArAd yap Todro pev CoTw pymw dedevypevov, GAN
éxelvo OnAov, or. ef maddAw TO WV els GAXO, GAAN evavTidrns
kal TO VY drap€er cal To t T@ I]. dyolws & det pera

> VY vrapfer kal TO mupi TO TI. dpolws 8 det p

on

a / 3 4 ¢ ~ e ,
TOU mpooTiWenevov evavTidTys Tis UmapEer Tots EutrpocOev, Hot
> a ne , a +e Ne i ’ de
ei Gmeipa, Kal evavridtyntes Ametpor TO Evi brdp§ovow. ei dé
ay > + Lee ION BA / ¥
TOUTO, OVK €oTaL ovTE Spicacba ovdey OUTE yeverOa Senoe
yap, el €orar dAdo é€ GAAOv, Tooav’ras Sie€eAOeiv evavTidrytas,
/
kal étt TAelous, WoT els Evia pev ovdeToT EoTat pEeTAaBo0AN, 10
ofov ei dmeipa tra peragd (davdyxn o, elmep ameipa Ta
orouxeia), ere 8 odd e€ dé€pos eis Tip, ei dmeipor ai evar-
TidtynTes. ylverar 5€ kal mdvta ev: advdyKn yap Tacas

b 22 dpa péAayr 7) AevKoOy EL 23 dn] de L To AevKoY mp@Tov
F: 10 @ mp&rov J et fort. E? 24 TO mupi ro 7 Ft 25 tmdpée
E pevom. EFL _ sip rd mpérov] rip rparov vel 7 16 mp@rov F:.
Tip TO pev mp@rov HI L 26 dé om. L 27 Se om. L 67]
de L 28 ev om. EL 30 ro] tas E?7HL ametpa F
31 peAnoartes EF — rovro] rod L 33 peraBadrAa. EFL 34 Ts
om. F T® Tupi + E @An om. E at 5) K] dé8)K F:
deK L 2 peraBadrAec F* ~—s- yap incertum E 3 yap om. H
pyre] pndérw FHI 4 Xn éorat evavriorns F 5 kai prius
om. 8 dpicarOa] épicOa, suprascr. a, E: apicda F
Q @droeora E dreddeciv F 128om.L otf’ om.E eisleJ

ai om. L 13 yap mdcas] yap H: maparacas J‘: yap dmrdoas FJ?

20

dS
or

30

35
333°

48 ITEP] TENESEQS KAI @OOPAS B

timdpyew Tots pev Kato tod IT ras trév dvwbev, Tovrois dé
Tas TOV Kdtwhev, @oTE TaVTA ev ~oTal.
Oavypdocere 8 Gv tis TOV AEydvTMV TAElw Evds Ta
a a i /
oTolxela TOV cwopdTwv wate pr) peTaBadrAew eis GAAnAa,
Qn an / / an
ka0dmep “EpredoxAns yor, mOs evdexerar A€yew avtots
= XS S a 4 / 4 ce ~ \
elval GvLBANTA TA OTOLXELaA—kKaiTOL AEyel OUTW, “ TadTa yap
9S / / 33 ’ x > bs \ , 2 / > ,
lod Te TavTa”. et pev ovY KaTa TO TOTOY, avayKN TadTO TL
elvar tmapxov Anact Tots cupBAyrots @ perpodvTa, otov ei

e€ tdaros KoTvAns elev dépos d€xa* TO atrd Te Hv dpa.

¥ 3 nm n > bib ’ X\ \ v4 ‘ \
appw, ef merpeitat TH atro. ei S€ py) otTwW KaTa TO TO-
SS F \ € \ 3 nN >] >’ ed , e
cov oupBAnTa ws TOTO Ex TOTOV, AAA Ocov Svvarat, oloy
ei xotvAn datos toov ddvarac yew kal d€xa dé€pos,
Kal OvTwWS KaTa TO TOTdV Ovy TOcdY oUpBANTa, GAN F
s X 2 eptoaies !
A / yy ’ \ NS n a a / /
dvvarat rt. ln 0 dy Kal pa) TS TOD ToTOD péeTpH TUUBAA-
U
AecOar Tas dvvapets, GAAG Kat’ avadoylav, olov as Tdde
Oepuov tdéde Aevkdv: TO 8 as TédE onpaiver ev pev TOL TO
4 2 SS to ” Nae vA a 4 \
OMoLoV, Ev O€ TH TOTW TO ivov. AToToVv dy daiverat, ef TA
odpata dyeTaBAnta dvra pay avadoyla ovuBAnrd éorw,
AANA / n PS / hoe ” » 4 6 \ x
GANG pETPH TOV SvVaEewv Kat TO elvat toov Oepyov 7
€ 4 \ \ \ ay \ \
Opolws Tupos tTocovdt Kal dépos moAAaTAdoLOY: Fd yap
7 eae. tay ” € ws > n“ e \ P.

avTo mAEloy TO Spoyeves evar Towdrov E€er Tov Dédyov.
x
GANG pay ovd avénors av ein Kar *"Eymedoxdéa, GAN 7}
i , ‘ X + \ ny ce + X X\
kata mpdceow: mupi yap avger rd mop, “abger 58 yOov

aS , n/ > rma a S 4
ev oetepoy deyas, aldépa 6 aldyp , ratra 5€ mpooribe-
taut doxel & odx ovTws avfeoOar Ta adgavdueva. TOAD de
XaAreT@TEpovy aTododvat TEpl yevéoews THs KaTa hiow. Ta

X , / / 4 a. a eee Oe TS! \
5 yap ywoueva hvoe. TavtTa ylyverar H del wdl H @sS ET TO

4 \ * \ \ + RO \ c > \ \ b) \ >
Tohv, Ta S€ Tapa TO del Kal @s etl TO TOAD ATO Tad-

a4 rovrous| trois F} 15 €vom. L 18 dno] Aéyee EL
evd€xerat] € éorat F 19 «ivat om. F 20 Te om. F'HJL mavra
iva, ei E: elvae add, etiam Fin margine rd0m.EF* = 21 éy
draco F 22 «lev koruAa dépos F To] rodro E 23 supra ef
prius Yp- 7) scripsit H room.EF = ampédcov E} 24 éuBdrnra L
ws om. E: ot J dvivavra E 26 kaiom. EL ro om, F

27 Sivavrat Li 28 ras] Kai Tas F 29 VevKdv Téd€ Oeppdr .

EL €v MEV TOG om. E, ante onpaiver ponit L 30 r@ om. F
32 TO] Td JL! 33 dpoiws EJ@: duoov FHL 34 mheior] meiov
dv coni. H. W. B. Joseph dpotoyeves J 35 «in GAAn kar E

add’ om. E ala J: 77 L b 2 d€uas] yévos EFL 3 avé6-
peva H 5 w0i...6 cai om. F4 oot om. EFL } as] @ J,
corr. tamen supra lin. To om, E 6 76 ws emi roAD E

‘ree ae ae

5. 533% 14 -—— 6. 33331 49

/ ca}
Towarov Kal amo Tvxns. TL obv TO alrioy Tod e€ dvOpdrov
¥ x ; ee Sed. e ; ee 4 , 5] al a \
avOpwrov 1 det H ws etl TO TOAV, Kal €k TOU TUpOd TYpdY
%\ , *\ nr n
GAG pn édalav; 7H Kal, €dy wd ovvTEOh, doTodvv; od yap
4 ” , SOX > a b a fs
Omws €ETvxe ovvedOdvTwy ovdev ylyverar, KaW & exeivds
now, GAG Ady tii. tl ody TovTOV alriov; od yap dH wp
XN n 999 a

ye 1) yr adda pay ovd H gidAla Kal TO velKxos, ovyxpl-
\ , \ X\ 7 y+ ™ a \ €
Tews yap povov, TO b€ Siakpivews aitiov. Tovro 8 éorly 7
ovola 7 éxdoTtov, GAN ov povov “ wikis Te SiddAAaEgls TE pL-
/ ” e/ > A 7 coo?) 2 NN ad > /
yevtwv.”’, womep exeivds hnow. Tvxyn “8 emt Tots dvoud-
» 9 > > , ” ‘ an € ” a
erat”, GAN’ od Adyoss Eat. yap ptxOjvar ws ervxev. TOV

ia , x ¥ \ ef ” OR eta SR /
dn pvoet OVTwWY aiTLOY TO OUTwWS EXEL, Kal 1) ExaoTOV Pots
airn, mept hs, ovdev A€yer ovdey Apa wept dioews déyer.
b) s \ ees eet, a NS , CSN / ,
GAAG piv Kal TO €d ToUTO Kal TO dyabov: 6 be THY pléw pd-
vov ématvet. Kaito. Ta ye oTolxeia diaxpiver ov TO veikos,
GAN 7 gidia tra hice. mpdrepa Tor Oeodt—Oeoi de kai
> o aN \ , ¢€ A ee > BN € \
TavTa. €ru d€ mepl Kiwyoews ATAGS Eyer. OV yap ikavov

bd fay , ¢€ "4 \ \ “ al > \ Lee ae, 5

elety Sidte 4» iAta Kal TO veiKos Kuwetl, ei py TOUT HV dt-

= / x
Ata eivat TO Kwyoer Toradl, velker SE TO ToLadi: deu ody 7

x J x val XK an S
dploacba. » strodécOa 7 amodeiEa, 7 akpiBGs 7H pada-
a x
KOs 7) GAAws yé Tos. err 8 emel gatverar Kal Bia Kal

DS , 4 = , \ \ 4 \
Tapa vow Kwotvpeva Ta copata kal kata dtow (olor 7d.

Oo" a A.
Tip dvw pev ov Bia, kdrw be Bia), To SF Bla TO Kara
4 DY ee /
giow evartiov, €ort d€ TO Bias €oTw Apa Kal TO Kata Pv-
~ / 2 SEBS , A. KX ¥ > 4 BN
ow KweicOa. Ttadtrnv ody h pidrla Kiet; 7 ov; TovvayTiov yap
a \ a A tal
THY ynv Kat, Kat diaxpioer EoiKev, Kal paddAov TO vetkos

b 7 ard om. F ro supra lin. add. J 8 7 secundum om. L

Q ov yap] aN’ ovy FH] &° 10 xa’ dG] kaba EHL®*: xaddmep F
11 ovv] odv ro L rovrov EJ*6¢;: rovroy FHJ'LT = 13, yap...
diaxpioews om. E? d] dé y J 15 tuxn] pvows E 8'] yap

J*r rots scripsi, cf. Empedokles fr. 8 (Diels, p. 175): 10 toov JT:
rovros FHL et fort. E!: rovrwy fecit E? (suprascr. os) 16 éruxer]

Tuxn L 17 dn] de F 18 ovdev ante dpa incertum E
19 xai prius om. E, spatio duarum litterarum relicto —_ xai secundum
om. E ro secundum habent FJ*6, om. EHJ*L povny L
20 kairo. ... 22 radra fort. supra post 13 airioy legenda 20 ye]
re EFL Scaxpivet J 22 b€ cal wepi L 23 gudia] pidcay
EL 24 ro secundum om. EFJL éde] det H: incertum E
7 om. H 25 dmodeiéa] arodovvar E 26 addas] dps coni.
Bekker aasyeF. aivovra ELo! 27 room. EL 28 ov
om. E TO b: Bia ro kara FH 31 Kato] dvw FL, Bonitz

diaxpioe:] Bia xweiv coni. Bonitz. Nihil tamen mutandum : scilicet
i kata vow Kivnors (cf. Vv. 32) THY yiv KdT@ Kivel, Kai Ovaxpioret EorKey

2254 . E

Ik

e

30

50. MEP] TENESEQ> KAI ®OOPAS B

a . / x e/ ae 4
airiov THs Kata diow Kkwyocews 7 7) pidla, wore Kal dArws
nr n / ‘\ id
mapa dvow pidta dv ein paddrov. and@s bé, eb pH 7
a a n a >
iria 7) TO velkos Kweli, adrév- TG cwopdtov ovdeuia Kivn-

35 ois €otiy ovde povyn? GAN Gromov. er. bé kal halverar Kivov-
t s N x a a3 > ȴ <5 ak
3342 weva—buexpive prev yap TO vetkos, nvEexOn 5 avw 6 aldnp

I

20

2

5

5

on

an / : s,s § 4
ovx md TOU velkous, GAN’ bre ev now woTEp amo THyNS
4 > »+
(“ottw yap ovvéxvpoe Oéwy Tdére, ToAAdKL 8 GAAws”) dre
a / > ,
d€ gynor TehuKévat TO Tip avw depecOa, 6 8 aiOyp,
a : ud \
gnot, “paxphor Kara xOdva dvero plfas”. Gua be Kal
a an \
Tov Kécpov dpolws éxew gyolv emi TE Tov velKovs voy Kal
mporepoy emt THs hiAdlass ti oby éotL TO KWovY TpPOTOV Kal
a al /
airiov THs KWHhoEws; ov yap oi) 7) hiAla Kal TO vetKos* GAAG
an a td
TiWos KWwhoews Tadta atria, el Cy’) early exeivo apy). dro-
SS \ 3) :t Se 59 a / \ oe 2 ¢
tov 6€ Kal ef 7 Woxn) ex TOV oToLyelwy 7 ev TL adTov: al
XN 2 / € ~“ m~ fa) ba eS \
yap addotmoets at THS Wuyns TOs EvoVTaL, olovy TO povot-
‘\ , sh £ an
KOV €ivat Kat mdAw Gpovocov, 7 mynn 7 ANOn; Shdrov yap
a4 3 iN a € z Ss / ¢ oF tN ge en \
Ore el pev Top 1) Woxy, TA TA0n bndpke adrh Soa Trpl
* wip, eb 5& puxrév, TA cwpatikd TovTeov 8 oddey cwpa-
, >) ~~ \ \ /, CHE 4 é 3 \ 0 4 \
TLKOV. GAAG TEPL MEV TOUTWY ETEpas Epyov eat Oewpias, TeEpt
d&€ TOv oTotxelwy @€ OY TA CbpaTa oUvéDTHKEY, SooLs peV
a BN
doxel TL etvat Kowdv 7 peraBddAdrew els GAdAnAa, dvdyKy
bd] / 8 \ / 7. id X \
el Oatepov TovTwY, Kal OaTepoy ovuBalvew: Soo. 5€ pH Tol-
a / bd
ovaw e€ GdA\AnAwY yéveow pnd ws @€ Exdorov, TARY ws ek
st 14 bY n b) b] + / %
tolxov TAivOovs, dromov TOs e& exelvwv ~oovtar odpKes Kal
doTa kal TOV GddAwv dtiody. exer 5F TO AEeydmevov amoplav
\ nm 3 r J / n ie / / rd >
kat Tots €€ dAAjAwY yevrvdow, tiva tpdmov yiyvera e& ad-
TOV Erepov TL Tap avTd. éyw 8 olov ex wupds eotw Bdwp
Kal €x tovtov ylyverOar Tip (€or. ydp TL Kowdv TO broKelpe-
vov), GAAa by Kal oap€ @€ adrdv yiverar Kal pvedds:

b 33 7 secundum om. EFL 34 ] kat E kivei] Kivot HJ:
xwoin L & 2 mep amd rvxns supra lin. add. F 3 Gedy voids
rote E moAddkis F 4 hnot| djce F 5% Sverat pitns (ut
videtur) E pites J 6 re om. EL 9 « y eorly SCripsi :
ei €or EHJ: éorw (el be in marg. additis) F: e & éorw L: si
utique est T 12 i r.] kal d. HJ: i) kat A. F 14 copatixdy]
copatiko L 15 adda yap rept J pev om. FH €otiv épyov
HJ rep secundum] ex J: wept fecerunt EF 17 rt elvat|
elvai Tt Fj: etvat Tt ) H: eiva rd o 19 as secundum om, E
23, Tap aira | tmapa tatra FHJ éotiv €k tupos EL 24 Tovrov]

Tov J mvp om. E

an

6.7335" 325— "7.334" 16 5

tavbra 6 yiverat m@s; éxelvois Te yap rots A€yovow ws
"EpredoxAts tls €orat tpdmos; dvdyKn yap otvOeow elva
kabdrep &k mAtvOwv Kal AiOwy Tolxos Kal TO piypa be
TovTo €k cwouevwy pev Eota TGV oToLXElwy, KaTa puiKpa be
map GAdAnAa ovyKemevwv otrw 6% oap& Kal Tov GAAwv 30
Exactov. ovpBalver dy pa) €€ drovody pépovs capkds ylyverOat
Tip Kal bdwp, womep Ex Knpod yévour ay ex pev Tovdl Tod
pépovs odaipa, mupapis 8 &€ dddov Tivds, GAN evedéxeTd
4 f an : a
ye €& Exarépov Exdrepov yeverOat. Todro pev 41) TobToy yiverau
\ , %.! Pp] ”~ \ bl] € ” BA n >. 8 / ~
Tov Tpdmov, (rd) ex THs capkds e€ drovovy dudw Tots 8 éxelvws 35
A€yovow ovdk evddxerat, GAN ws ex Toiyov AlOos Kal wALvOos, 334°
éxdrepov €€ GAAov TéTOV Kal péepous. dpolws S€ Kal Tots ToL-
ovo. play atrdav tAnv éxer Twa amopiay, TGs ~orar TL e&
3 é Z “ \ 6 a * \ \ a p)
dupotépwr, ofov Woxpod Kal Oepyot 7 mupds Kal yis. el
, 3 e iy 3 J n \ / - ie
yap éotw » oap& e€ audoivy Kal prdérepov éxeivwv, pnd :
ad otvbeois cwopevwr, Ti AeimeTaL TAHY THY bAnv elvat TO e€
BI / € \ / > a 1 / a ox \ o
exelvwv; n yap Oarépov POopa 7 Oatepov Trovet H THY VAnv.
@ 9 a 2 ov 3 ; \ rad \ @ Q \
ap ovv émedn €oTe Kat padAov Kal 7yTTov Oepyov Kat o-
xpov, Grav pev amdOs 7) Odrepov evTedrexela, Svvaper Oa-
Tepov eotrau brav d5€ pi TavTeAGs, GAN ws pev Oeppov 10
Woxpov, os be Wrypdv Oeppov (ia 7d pryvipeva POeipew
Tas Umepoxas GAANAwr), TOTE OVO 7H TAN Eorar ovTEe exeivov
TOV evayTioy €Exdrepov eévTedexela ATAGS, GAAG peray,
vad Kh BD
kara O& TO Suvdper paddAov eivar Oepyov 7 Wrypdv, 7 Tod-
, N ca) \ , V4 \ f ee
vavtiov, Kata TovTov Tov Adyov SitAaclws Oeppov Svvaper 7H 15

we

A =a a y
Woxpev, 7) TpimAaciws, 7) Kat’ GAXAov TpdTov ToLovTOV; ETAL

a 26 87] 5¢ H: 8 fecit F Trois yap E as] domep F
28 miivOav cai éx AiOov H: AiPwv kai rAivOov F de] 67 FHJL

29 rovro] ro év HJ] pevom. H 31 €xkacrov. oupBaiver yoo
ovT@ A€youot pi é€k TavTds pépovs capkds yiverOa depa vdap Kal Ta
€repa, GAda e& éxarépov éxatepov, TovTéoTiv ek TavTwY TapaTeOetpEevov
kal évurrapxovtwv evepyeia dnavra Staxpiver Oat, drep ovx ovTw gaiverat.
ovpBaiver L 6n] 5¢ H 32 domep ei ex in marg. add. F
34 ye] kai L yeverOat] yiyverOa F - 35 7d e coni. addidi:
cf. &¢ (Vitelli 274. 5) €& drovovv] e€arod ody J b 4 oiov ek
Aeppod kai Wuxpod E | kai E 6 avvbects] civOeow E:
ovvbéoe E tiv EFHJL®*: om. Bekker 7o om. E 7 yap
ex Oarépov HJ : yap éxarepov DP érroiee FHJ 7 secundum
om E 8xaiyp.jJjy.F 11 dvapGciper H 15 xara]
éxdrepov kara F: xaixata L — rovrov tov] rov rovray HJL — buma-
ciws] kal rd Ady SirAaviws FH]: cai durdacios L 16 Towovrov
rpdrov F
E 2

20

35

Soa,

on

10

52. MEP! TENESEQS KAI ®OOPAS B

lal : x a
67) plxOevtwy TarArN ex Tov évavtioy 7 TGV oToLXElwY, Kal
bn tal 3 > 7 / ¥y > (v4 . e
Ta oTolxela e& exeivwr Svvdper Twas dvTwY, Ody otTw dé ws
» UAn, GAAG Tov elpnuévov tpdmoy—xal éoTw otrw pev pl-
3 / X (v4 = x 4, 3 n\ \ \ / 3
Eis, é€xelvws d& BAN TO yuwdopevov. erel 5€ Kal Tacyer Ta-
vavtia Kata Tov év Tols mpeToLs Siopiopdv: aT. yap TO év-
~
epyela Oeppov dSvvayer Woxpov Kai Td évepyeia Woxpov dv-
¥
vapet Oepudv, woTe eav pry lodtn peraBddAdrde eis GA-
Andra, Spoiws b& Kal emi Tov ddAwy evavriwvs Kat mp@rov
ef SN a / 2 b BN , / perme ~
ovTw TA oTOLXEla peTAaBdAAEL, ex 5€ TOUTWY TapKEs Kal doTa
a lal n / n n
Kal Ta ToLadTa, TOD ev OEpuod yryvouevov Wrxpov, Tod sé
n na 4 \ \ / yx > “” X\ >
Woxpod Oepuod, Srav mpds TO péoov AOn (evradvOa yap ov-
d€Tepov), TO 5€ peoov TOAD Kal ovK ddiaiperov. syolws be
kat TO &npdov xal vypov kal Ta TovavTa Kara peodryTa
To.ovat capkKa Kal doTody Kal TaAAa.
ed ‘ XN > ane / vd \ \ Le /
AtravTa 0€ TH PLKTa oouaTa, doa TEPL TOV TOV E-
gov Tonov eotly, e&€ amavrwv ovyxkeitar TOV aTAGY. —-yH ev
yap evuTdapxe aor 61d TO ExaoToy eivat pddtoTta Kal
lal 3 n ’ , 4 e XN X\ \ a ‘ ew
TAEloTOV EV TO OlKEL@ TOTM: Vdwp O€ Oia TO deliv peV Opt-
\ uA , 3 * n tg n +7 A
Cecbat To obvOeTov, pdvov 8 Elvat TOV aTAGY EvOpLOTOY TO
cf ¥ XN \ ‘ ~ # os ¢e “a * 4,
vdwp, ETL OE Kal THY yHv avev Tov Vypov pn dvvacbaL ovL-
/ 3 ‘ a3 a \ 4 > \ 3
pevev, GAAG TodT eEivat TO TVEexor—el yap eLatpeOein Te-
A€ws e€ adtns TO typdv, divanlaro. dv. yi pev odtv cal Bdap
dia Tavras eévumdpxer Tas airtas, dnp be Kal mup, Ort
evavtia éotl yh Kal toate (yn pev yap dept, Vdwp Se zupl
vi Yi pev yap dépi, Twp p
P CA 3 / € 3 / > lA > / > / te > ‘
evavtiov éotiv, os evdéexerat ovolay ovoia évaytiay eivat) ézel
be € / 3 n a 7 b] Pes) / X\
ovv ai yeveoets €x TOV evavtior eioly, evuTdpye: be Odrepa
axpa, Tov évaytiov, dvdykn Kal Odrepa evuTapxew, oT ev
amavtt TO ovv0ér@ Tavta Ta GTA eveoTtar. paptupelv &
/ s ad
€olKe Kal 7) Tpody ExdoTov' Gmavra pev yap TpEedherar Tots
b 17 6] uy E, et suprascr. J? Tadnr'] adv’ E 19 ovra]
rovto HJ, &! (codd. RZ) #¢ pikes] peikers E 20 d€ 9 vAn FL
del 82] érel 8) E: émed) @! 23 dav] dy H eis om. EL
24 post mp@rov add. ye ©! et (supra lin.) J? . 26 yevouévov F
27 €On| €LOwow HJ 29 room. HJL post ra add. @\da ra
in marg. F: cf. etiam # et T 30 dcrovv] dora (quod libris FH
perperam attribuit) Bekker rdd\X\a ra toradra F1'HJ = =—s 331. Graal]
mavra Jb! 32 yn] yns H 33 yap om. F 34 8é] d) L
35 Tov ovvOeror J amar] @dov & @ 4 évurapxovot F
5 yap om. F 6 évavriay| évavriov H 7 Oarepa] Oarepoy

L 8 dxpa om. .H, supra lin. add. J: dxpov L Oarepa] Oarepov
HL 10 éxdorov E'H: éxdoroy E?FJL

8

_ al en

—— oe

7. 334517 —9. 33554 53

“ / / 5S ‘
avrots 退 @vmép éorw, Gmavta 5& TAeloor Tpéperar. Kat
d n
yap dep dy ddfevey Evi pdvm tpéhecOa, TS Vat. Ta gv-
/ la / / \ an A an \
Ta, tA€loou- tpéperars pemixtar yap TO ati yr 81d
\ € \ n 7 LA \ AS | \ ¢€
kal of yewpyol meipGvrar pléavres dpdew. emel 8 eorl 7
XS \ ”~ vA \ X / Fr na
ey tpopn tHs vAns, TO b€ TpEehouevoy ovvEtAnppevy TH
bAn 7 popdy Kal ro €idos, eVAoyoy dn TO pdvoy Tv
nw) poppy ; yov ijon 70 p
a / / \ =
GmAGv cwopatwv tpéeperOar TO TIP andvTwv e@& GAAHAwY
/
yiwonevwv, SoTep Kal of mpdrepor A€yovow: pdvov ydp éott
\ / fate y \ A” \ 5," / /
kal padtota Tov eldovs TO TUp bia TO TEduKEvar déeperOaL
\ X 4 ed XN / > ‘\ ¢€ an /
mpos Tov Opov. Ekaorov d€ TépuKev els THY EavTod hépeOar
, c * \ \ \ c / - lal <4
X@pav- 7» 8 popdr Kal TO eldos amavTwy ev Tots Gpors.
ed . an
dt. pev ovvy dmavta ta copara @€ anavTwv ovvéotnKe TOY
aTAG@v, elpnrat.
Paced BP: 12 ae. N \ 6 / AD re ,
Tel €oriy évia yevnta Kal pOapra, Kai 1 yéveots
s 3 ny \ \ / , / \
Tvyxdvet ovoa ev TO TEpt TO pegov TdT, AeKTEov TeEpl
maons yevérews Spolws méoar te kal Tives adThs dpxat:
a 4 / n
paov yap ovtm Ta Kal? Exacta Oewpyooper, Stav epi TOV
Ka0ddov AdBapwev TpPGTOV. eioiv ody Kal Tov dpLOpor toat Kal
T® yever ai avral aimep ev Tots didiows Te Kal mpwro.ss 7

pev yap éotw ws vAn, } 8 @s popdy. Set 5€ Kat THY Tpl- ;

Thv éTt Tpoovmdpxew: ov yap ixaval mpos TO yevvjoa ai
dvo0, Kabdrep ovd év toils mp@Tois. ws pev ody VAN Tois ye-
yyntois éotw altriov TO duvaroy eivar Kal py eivar—ra pev
yap e& dvdykns éorw, otov ra didia, Ta 8 e& AvayKns ovK
éorw (rovrwy 5& Ta pev addvaroy pi) eval, TA b& advvaToY

5

35

eivat, Sid TO ph evdéxerOar mapa 7rd dvayxatov dAdws 335”

. \ \

éxew), €via d& Kal etvar Kal pi) etvar dvvatd—érep eat TO
\ \ , XN X X ¥ yn X Ss %
yevntov Kal POaprév: mote pev ydp €or. TodTo, moTe 6 ovK
\ \

éoTw* wot dvayKn yéveow eivar kal pOopay Tepi TO dvvarov

@ Il é¢orww| ciciv FH Treiwor J 12 ydp éorv (Superposito
daa) anep F padiora post ddfeev add. JL (delendum tamen notat

J*), post rpéheoOa add. H 14 kat post yewpyoi ponit E, omisso oi

supra dpdew add. kirpa E15 rpepdpevor de F ouverAnppern |
} TuverAnppeévyn J: ouverAnppévoy FL et (ut videtur) H: rd cuvecdnu-
pévov ® 16 tAnm popdy J 17 €&] yap e€ H, qui 18 yap om.

18 mpdrepot] rpdrepoy L: mounrai (ut videtur) &° 20 éavroi]
avrod HJ 20-21 xepav heperOa EL 24 yevynra L, et ubique

26 re om. Fo? airs] atrav F®° ss apxai EFHJL: ai apyat
@°et Bekker 27 €xacra] éxacrov EL Oewpnowper J 31 yap
dy ixkavai EL ai om. EL 32 ovv om. F yerynrois HL |
33 atriov post py eivacponit F = duvarov om, L 34 ovx €or €&
avaykns F b 4 dvdyxn] dvaykaiov F

54 TEP] TENESEQS KAI POOPAS

5 €tvat Kal pi) etva. 810 Kal @s wey VAN ToUT’ éoTiv airiov Tots
a € N \ e ¢ € ‘ ‘ ‘ td a ~
yevytois, ws b&€ TO ov Evexa 7 popdy Kal TO Eldos: TOTO
& éoriv 6 Adyos 6 Tis Exdotov ovolas, det 5€ mpoceivar Kal
\ / & e S Sis , dé 3 nd 4
THY Tpitnv, Nv GamavTes pev OvELpwTTOVOL, AEyeEL ovodets.
\ \
GAN of pev tkarijy @nOnoav airiay eivar pos TO yiverOa
an n a /

10 THY TOV €lddv hiow (domep 6 ev TO Paidwrvi Dwoxparns—xai

XN b] a b] A a GAY € ide MG ,
yap €kéeivos, €miTiunoas Tots ols as ovdey eipynkdour,
€ / ig 3 \ n » Xx \ 4 X\ XN XX
bmotiOera, STL €otl TGV OvTwY Ta peEV Edn TA SE pEOEKTLKG

lal OA \ wre s X e / ‘\ \ to
TOV €ldGv, Kal STL Elvar pev ExaoTov A€yeTaL KaTa TO €ldos,
yivesOar 6€ KaTa THv peTaAnWw Kal POciperOar KaTa Ti
n an /

15 AT0BoAnY, WoT el Tadra GAnOH, Ta €ldn olerar e€€ avayxns

y > \ rf ‘ lad ¢€ % | Le X\ vA
atria eivar Kal yeveoews Kal pOopas), of & adriyv thy bAnr,
P) tA X\ > wi 7 3 r x /
amo TavTyns yap Elva THY Kiynow. ovderepor dé A€yovat Ka-

n ee Put 9 ¥ SY yea eee cael, ae a
Ads. ef Mev yap €oTW aitia Ta €ldn, Ola TL OVK del yerva

n 2 X\ . + ~ ~ > + a. \ an 9O 7
ovvex@s, GAAG ToTe pev ToTe 6 Ov, OVTwWY Kal TOV cldav
p ee \ n n of t eke Bee ae ee cal A
20 del Kal TOV peOEKTLKOV; ETL O° em eviwy Oewpodpev GAAO Td
na 1s
airtov ov: dylevay yap 6 iatpos emo? Kal emiorypnv 6
eTLOTHUwY, ovons Kal bytelas ad’Tns Kal emuoTHyNs Kal TOY
fal € if x \ >] \ nN #7 Nn \ 4
peOeKTiKGv, woatTws O€ Kal éml TOV GAAwY TOV KaTa 4bv-
/ b S \ / / c bs
Vapuly TpaTTowevov. el O€ THY VAnV Tis gdyoee yevvay bia

\ / , SS / n [v4 ,

25 THY Kivynow, voukwTepov pev av A€you TOV obTw AEydvTwV
(ro yap ddAdAowodv kal 7d peracxnpariCoy aitidrepdy te Tod
yevvay, kal év &racw ei@Oayev TodTO A€yew TO ToLOdY, dpot-

yd a 4 \ b] a >) bo / A >

ws €v TE Tois dior Kal ev Tots amo TExVNS, 6 dv H KWy-

, > X\ 3 X \ eo > b] n / na \ \
TLKOV), OV pV GAAG Kal ovTOL Odk 6pOGs A€yovoly. Tis pev yap
A \ / 2 \ \ \ ta \ SS al \ \
30 VANS TO TacxEW €oTl Kal TO KiWetoOaL, TO SE KiVEtY Kal TO
a) cf / a X \ : n / \
Tovey eTEpas Suvayews—Ofjrov O€ Kal el TOV TEXVN Kal

, foo" n , / > \ 3 2% nn 2 a an
em TOV HUoEL yiVoNEvwV’ OV yap AUTO TOLEL TO BOwp Hor
€€ avrod, ovdé rd EVAov KAlvynv, GAN 7) TExYN—GoTE Kal obror
b5 trois] € ev trois H 6 évera] éverey E 7 6 secundum om.
EL Ths Exagrou| éxagTov Tis HJ?: ris éxdorns he dé om. E

kat Thy om. E 9 ad oi pév om. E Thy aitiay F 10 T@
om. E 14 peradnyw, litteris Anyei in litura scriptis, E 16 airijy]
av H 17 eivat om. F 19 kal tov eidav a aei om. he 20 6 om.
H 21 év om. F'HJ yap] om. J: yap cai E 24 hnoece|
pnone E: djocee HOLT: hyoiv J: hhow L 25 pev om. F he-
yovrey | Ae youevav EL 28 hice] huorxois L \ ev secundum
om.F = amd réxvns dro réxyns d€ FH], et (in margine) E?— 4] ety
fecit E: post kiwnrikdy Petre F 30 ro quartum om. EL

32 €mi Trav om. F ov| ore HJ 32-33 <@ov €€ €avrov H: &&
é€avtrov (ov F 33 ovde] otre FH

we

Io

9. 33595 — 10. 336% 27 55

fal , n
dua TodTo A€yovow ovk 6pOGs, kal ti Tapadrelmover Ty Kvpiw-

tépay airiay: e£aipodou yap TO rh jv elvae Kal ri popdyp. 35
ére 5€ Kal ras Suvdwers amodiwddacr trois cépact, bv ds 336"

yevvGo., Alay dpyavixds, adaipodvres Ty Kata TO €ldos
+ ae > \ ‘ / e \ ‘ \
airiay. emer yap mepukey, @s gacr, TO pev Oeppov
duaxptvew TO 8 Yuxpdv ovvioTdvat, Kat TOV ddAAwY éxa-
oTov TO pev Tovey TO S€ TacxeEWW, ex ToUTwY éyovor Kal
dua TovTwy Anavta TadAa ylyvecOar kai hOelpecOar. dat-
verar 6€ Kat TO Tip adTd Kiwwovpevov Kal mdoyov. ere be
TapamAjovov Towdow domep eb Tis TO Tplovi Kal ExdoTw
n / n
TOV dpydvev amoveéyor thy aitlay Tov ywopuévwr: davdyKn
XX ‘4 “ \ / 7. ‘ y ae,
yap mplovros SiaipetoOar Kal f€ovtTos AcalverOar, Kai én
TOV GAAwv épolwss Bor ei Gri pddwora Tove? Kal Kiel TO
na -_ “7 a an a BN
Trip, GAG TOs KiVEl OV TpOTMEwpodow, Gr. xEipoy 7 TA Gpyava.
nuivy d&€ KaOddrov Te mpdTepor elpnrar Tepl Tov aitiwy, Kal
vov di@piotar wept. Te THs BAns Kal rhs pop@ns. ere de
3 \ ¢€ DS \ X 7. / 4 > f
émel 7) Kata tiv gopay kivnois dédeuxrar Sri aiduos,
dvayKkn tTovtwv dvtTwy Kal yeveow «ivat cvvexds' H yap
popa Towoe. THY yéverw evdedexGs Sia TO Tpocdyew
> a \ Vs el a La 4 \ BY 4
kal amdyew TO yevyynrixdyv. dya 5& dnAov Gru Kal Td Tpd-
Tepoy KaA@s elpyTal, TO TpOTHV TOV peTAaBorAGy THY do-
x > \ \ \ / >] a \ XN > ,
pay ahAd py Thy yeverow eiteiv. moAV yap evAOoywTEpoY
\ Bb na \ yy / » i x \ \ A a
TO OV TO pH OvTL yeveoews alrioy eival H TO pH OV TO
wy ao © \ XS by , \ \ , >
OvTL TOU Eival’ TO ev OV EpopEVoY ETL, TO SE ywVOpLEVOV OUK
7 \ Rh ie N a ee ee ee ae ee
éoTiww—d.id Kal 7 popa mporépa Ths yeveoews. emel 0 brd-
a / /
Keira Kal d€dexTar ovvexijs ovoa Tos mpdypacr yé-
veots Kal POopa, hayev & airilav «ivar tiv popay rod yi-
\ e 2 S + ns Cc > > /
verOat, pavepov ws pias ev ovaons THs popas ovK EvdexeE-
7 BA \ 4 3 , > \ \ b eM."
tar yiverOar aGudw bia 7d evavria ecivar (TO yap avro

al 6é€om.H dmodtddévot, suprascr. a, J, ds] aE

2 dpyavkds EHL®: dpyavkés FJT 3 emeidn)| € emet FHJ gact]

gnow E 7 kai secundum om. F 9 dmoveun F 10 mpiovros |

mpiovos dvros L Eaiovros F IL kevet kat rovet L I2 ov
m poo Bewpoiow fecit E: ov npobewpoiiow Fis ovx dpotow El; ovdx
dpoow FLT 13 re om. H: ro ol 15 7)v om. F 17 €v-
Tehexds E: actualiter i 18 kal drdyev om. F yeunrixoy E
kai 70] kat ra FHJL mpérepov| mr mpara F 19 tiv om. E
21 eivat atrvov L jom.E i... 23 din marg. add. F 24 ante
yeveots add. kai EL 25 Thv popay om, E 26 ws] ér+ H

rns (ut videtur) om. E*

an

56 IIEP] TENESEQS> KAI ®OOPASD B

tal . 4
kal @oavrws exov del Td adrdO TépuKe Totely, Hore jor
lal /
éveois fora det 7 POopa), dei Se wAelovs elvat Tas KW1)-
¥ U} pa}, O€
‘ 2 14 x 2 we OK >» 2 "§ a s
30 wets Kai evaytias 7 TH popa 7 TH dvwparig—ray yap
> 4 a 4 Pa) X \ 3 c / x b>] t
évavtiwy atria tavavria. 616 Kat ovx H TpeTyn opa airia
rad +
éorl yevésews Kal pOopas, add’ 7 Kara Tov okov KvKAov*
éy ratrn yap Kal TO ovvexés Evert. Kal 76 Kivetobar dvo
/ s
Kiwnoers* avdyKn ydp, et ye del €orar ovvexrs yéveois Kat
336” pOopd, det péy te KwetoOar, tva pa) emidrclrwow atrar at
peraBoral, dvo0 8, Stws py Odrepov cvpBalvyn povov. Tihs
na a /
pev ovv ovvexelas 7 Tod SAov dopa airia, rod b€ mpocrevar
\ > / € Dd / XX e- % X , if
kal dmuvar eyKAwols. ovuBaiver yap dre pev méppw yt-
5 vecOar bre 8 eyyds, dviocov S& Tod dvacrHpatos Gyros ave-
paros erat 4 Kivnows, wor ef TS TpocLevar Kal eyyvs civar
yevva, TO amevar Tavrov TodTo Kal méppw yiverOar POeiper,
kal ef T® ToAAGKLS TporEdOciy yevva, Kat TO TodAAKLS
P) tal 0 / n x 2 / >) oA \ >
ameAOcivy Pbetper—rav yap évaytiwy ravaytia atria, Kal év
wy , x € 6 x ‘\ € / € % 4 é ‘
10 lo® xXpoVv@ Kal » POopa Kal Hn yeveois H Kata vow. Lo
\ € 4 \ € ‘4 ¢c / >) \ 4 \ 4
kal ot xpévor kal of Blow Exdotwr apiOpoyv exovor kal TovTo
diopiCovrar. TmavTwy yap éot. Tdaéis, Kal mas yxpdévos Kal Bios
n ff) A > n > A di Arn’ e X
petpeira. Tepidd@, Tv ob TH abr mdvtes, & ol pep
b] / ¢ ‘ / “ X 2? 3 , mn ‘
€Aattove ot 6€ TAeiovey Tots pev yap éeviavTds, Tots 6é
15 pelCwy, Tots 5€ €Adtrwy 7% Teplodds eoTt, TO peTpov. aive-
rat 0€ Kal kata THv alcOnow spodroyovpeva Tois Tap’ Hudv
Adyous* SpGpev yap OTe mpocidvTos pev Tod HAlov yeveris eoTwy,
> , >" re A , L4 \
amdvros € POicis, Kal év tow xpdvw Exarepov: toos yap

@ 29 dei ora EL popa EJ 30 hbopa E 31 air
ra évavtia F : évaytia aitrra E: ravarria airia L 32 THs yeverews

éott kat THs POopas F = 33, &veott] €oru EL ~— evi Ba S00 om. E?

34 ye aei] re dei E: om. FH, et J qui tamen supra lin. (nescio an
prima m.) add. bi det] det J pevy om. F rt] ro. L

emaAtunavecw E: troXireow L 2 ovpBaiver J 4 éykAnots,
supra 7 ascripto 1, J 6 mpoévaa E 7 To] kalt@ H: kai év
To FL tavroyv TovTo] 7d av’Td Todro post yiverOac ponunt H et
(supra lineam add.) F : rodro adré post yiveoOa ponit J 8 mpoo-
edbciv| mpoorevae FHJ kai secundum om. F —_—s rod dts dre Oeiv]
moAXakts amévae F : dmtévar wodddxts fecit E? 9 ra évavria J (ra
supra lin. prima manu addito) 10 kal prius om. HJ®@! 7 ante
kara om. E Il éxdor@v obv apiOpov F? 12 Bios kai xpévos
EL 13 perpara H mivres om. E mavres... 14 mAeiout
om. L 14 de priusom. E! trois pév] adXows pev L 15 rots]
adidas F eharrov J ro om. E 17 Adyots] Aeyopevors F

18 icos] icws E

ie ee atte “eh os

10, 336% 28 = 337° 13 57

6 xpdvos tis pOopas Kal Ths yevéeoews THs Kata dow,
GAAG ovpBalver mwodAdKis ev eAdrrov. POelperOar Tua THv
mpos GAAnAa ovyKkpaow t+ dvwyddrov yap ovons ths bAns
kal ov mavraxod Ths aithis avayKn Kal Tas yevéoes avw-
pdadous elvar kal ras pev Odtrovs ras 5& Bpadvtépas: Gore
ovpBaiver, dua (rd) Thy TovTwY yéveow ddrdows yiver Oar POopdy.
1 eee > (4 \ € / q.. -e ,
dei 3, Somep elpynrat, cvvexis €orar 7 yeveois Kal 7» POopa
(kal ovdémore trodciWer 50 fv elmoyev airiav), totro &
Oxf , 2 \ XS 2 pee a /
evAdyws cup BéBnkev. emel yap ev Anaow del Tod BeAtiovos
épéyerOai hayev tiv ptow, BéAriov be TO evar 7 TO pH
\ > > 6 / Pd BA ¥y
civat (rd 8 elvat mocaxGs A€youev, ev GAdous elpyrat),
an > > 37 € X\ \ , nm
totro 8 év dnacw ddvvarov imdpyew dia TO Téppw Tihs
> ~ rs ~ / / / \
dpxis adloracba, TO AELtTOMEVO TPdTH OLVETANPwWOE TO
dAov 6 eds, evdeAEXH Toujoas tiv yévesww—ottw yap av
pddsora ovvelpoiro TO elvar dia TO eyyv’rara elva THs ov-
alas 70 yiverOat del Kat THY yéverwv. Tovrov 8 alriov, doTeEp
elpnrat moAAdkis, 7 KUKA@ dopa pdvn yap ouvexys. 610
kal taA\a doa petaBddAd\c. «eis GAAnAG KaTa Ta TdOn
kal tas dvvdyets, ofov Ta GmAG oopaTa, plpeiTaL THY
KiKA@ gopayv: brav yap e@& Bdaros anp yevnrar xal e€

Gépos Tip Kal mdAw ex Tod Tupds Bdwp, KVKAM gapev TeEpt- :

eAndvOevar tiv yéverow 1d TO TaAW GvaKdyrTeW* GoTe Kal
id > a X\ / X\ / / 3 ed X\
n €v0cia popa puovpern THY KVKA® ovVEXHNS €oTW. ya bE
djAov €x TovUTwY 6 TLWEs Aropodow, bia Th ExdoTov TGV Twud-
3 ‘\ 3 4 / , 3 n > 7 ,

Tov eis Tv olxelay hepopevov x@pay ev TO ATrelpw xpdvw
> Cad X , 4 x UA > \ c > »

ov OvecTAaCL TA OMOpaTa’ aiTLoY yap TovTOV €oTIV 7 Els GAAnAG
peTaBaois. «if yap Exacrov éuevey ev TH abTod xwpa Kal

na BA /

py peTéBadrArAev b7d Tod wAnolov, dn Gv SueoTHKeoav: pe-
TaBddAe pev ovv dia THY gopay sumAqv ovoay, ba dé 70d

big gopasE 20 bud ~+. 21 ovykpaow-suspecta 21 ovykpacw

] obykpovow" yéyparra yap Sirras &° 23 Oarrov EL Bpadv-

répas eivat bore EL 24 ovupBaiver J ro e coni. addidi
26 ovre more L 27 del post 28 pvow ponit F 28 apev

ante 27 rod ponit F To secundum om. H 30 advvaroy

70 ev Gracw E: adivaroy éy dracw L 32 évrehexi, E 33 eyyu-

rato F 34 det om. H rovrou] Touro F airvoy om.

ail | airian H 4 yap delendum notat - 5 rov om. EL

7 evdeia rovrav dopa L 10 ra civOera copata] = «is| en E
Il €pewey FH avrov EFHL 12 peréBatey H OuecornKeoay
H 13 pOopay E dé supra lin, add. J

be

°

bo
Jt

30

aT"

“Jt

58 MEPI TENESEQ> KAI ®OOPAS B

peraBanacy ovk évdéxerar pévew ovdev abrdv év ovdeuta
15 XOpaQ TEeTAypEVy. :
dudTe i ou €éoTL yéveors kat pOopa Kal dua tiv
airlav, cal rl rd yevnrov Kal Oaprév, pavepdv ex Tov
eipnuévov. emet 8 dvdyxn elvat te TO Kwody e Kivnots
Zorat, ®omep elpnra mpdrepov ev Erépors, kal ei del, Stu del
Sef Te elvat, kal ef ovvexns, ev Td adTd Kal axivytov kal
20 ayévyntov Kal dvadAoiwrov, kal ei mAclous at év KUKAM KL-
vices, tAelovs pév, macas S€ Tws Elva Tatras dvdyKn
bmd plav dpxyv' ovvexods & dévros Tod xpdévov dvayKn THY
kivnow ovvexh etvat, eimep ddvvarov xpdvov xwpls KwnoEews
eivarr cuvexods dpa twos apiOuds 6 xpdvos, THs KUKA® dpa,
kadarep ev Tots ev apxf Adyows SimploOyn. ovvexns 8 7 Ki-
vnois TOTEpov TS TO KWovpevoy ovvexes civar 7 TO ev O

iS)
on

Kwveiral, olov Tov TOTOV A€yw 7 TO TAO0s; SHAov SH Gru Td
TO Kwovpevov (Gs yap Td md00s cuvexes GAN 7 TO TO
Tpaypa @ ovpBéBnke ovvexes etvar; ef 5& Kal TO ev OG,
30 pov TOTO TS TéTH Drdpxel, peyeOos yap TL exeEt)* TovTOV
d& TO KUKA@ pdvoy cuvEexéts GoTE ato abrG del ovvexés*
tobro apa éoriv 0 moet covvexn Klynow, Td KiKA® oGpa
pepdpuevov, 7 5€ Kivnots Tov xpévov.
"Emel 8 ey rots ovvexGs Kwovpévois kata yéverw 7)

35 GAAolwow 7) GAws peraBodrArnv SpGyev TO ehekjs dv kal y.-

337° vowevov TOE peta TddE Wore pa) Siadrclmew, oKEeTMTEoV TdTE-

BS
pov éot. Tt O e€ avdykns éora, 7 ovdév, GAAG TdvTA évdé-
%. rf 4 s S of a“ \ > as \
XeTaL py yeverOar. OTe pev yap évia, SHAov, Kal evOds TO
€orat Kal TO peAdeu Erepoy 51a Todro: 6 pev yap ddnOes

a@i5 ddr] orn H 16 airiav cipnra xai EL he PRS
et infra 337” 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35,
338" 2, 3, 4, 5 avayxn, dudsene] a avaykaiov, dvayxaiou H 17 To om.
EFJe! kwovv] om. E, supra lin. add. J 18 ev] kal ev H
e om. E 18-19 det Set re] bet Tl ae F: dei te bei H
19 ouvexés E 20 dyévynroy FL ai ev] cevai HL = 21. dvdtyxn
om. EL 23 xepis] a dvev FH]: yp. advev E: cf. Phys. 218 33,
219% I 24 6 xpévos apOpds F THs | rots J 25 Adyous
om. F Sicoprorat H 7 om. HJ 26 | kai F i} TO 70 L
28 7d post yap supra lin. add. J adn 7 fecit E 29 } prius
supra lin. (prima tamen, ut videtur, manu) add. E 7@] ro FH
30 évurrapxet L 31 7d a’rd F det om. EL 32 dpa]
yap F b 2 16) 67 EF: 6 om. J? éora]eorw J =. 3-4 0
€ora coni. Bywater 4 peAX\e e€ coni. ‘scripsi: : cf. &¢ (Vitelli

302. 25 et 306, 12): peddov cod. omnes et !

II

101; B37 t4— EIy 337" 31 59

an na n >
eimeiy Ste €orat, Set TovTO elval more GAnOes Sri EoTw, 6 be 5

n o /

viv addAnOés elmeiv Gru pede, ovdey Kwdver pn yevérOar—
péAAwv yap av Badilew tis ovK Gv Badiceer, SAws 0,
P| \ 3 / » nn yf \ ‘ > es 4 \
émel evoexeTar Evia TOV OvTwWY Kal py) Elvat, SHAOY OTL Kal
, ‘v4 ed ‘ > bp] > 7 eA 4,
ywopeva ovtws e€er, Kal odx €€ dvdyKns Totr éora. 76-
» ed na XK yy ) > » b) val € lal
Tepov ovvy &mavta To.atra; 7) ov, GAN Evia dvaykaioy ands
/ \ # oe , oe | - 9 bs \ 9g 7 \
yevéoOat, Kal EoTiw woTEp Em TOU Elval TA peEV AdvVaTA pI

~ SS ae \ i tS s °
eivat, Ta 5€ Suvara, otrws Kal wepi Ti yéveow, olov Tpo-

XS »” > / ‘ > es \ > /
mas apa avaykn yevéoOar Kai ovy oldv Te pn evdéxerOa;
ei 52) TO mpdrepov avayKn yeverOar ef TO boTEpoy Era, oiov
ei oixla, Oeyedtov, el 5& TodTO, TNAGY: Gp’ ody Kal ec OepeE-
/ x
Awos yéyovev, avdykn oixlay yevéoOar; 7 odxkeTi, ef pn Ka-
o 7 ee 2 } c n 2 SX a Sap 4 \
Keivo avayKn yevéoOar amAGs; ef 5€ TOdTO, advayKn Kal Oe-
peAlov yevouevov yevéerOar oixiav: ottw yap iv TO mpdrepov
éxov mpos To torepov, Sor ei exeivo otal, dvayKyn éxeivo
/

mporepov: «i tolvuy avayKxn yevérOat TO toTepor, Kat TO Tpd-
Tepov dvdykn, Kal ef TO mpdrepov, Kal TO Botepov Tolvev
dvdyxn—aaAr od Ov éxeivo, GAN Sti Dréxeito e€€ avaykns

> , b] BA se, 2. f = b] , ;
é€oduevov. ev ols apa TO toTepoy avayKn elval, Ev ToOUTOLS

avtiotpéper Kal det Tod mpotépov yevouevov avaykn yevéo Oat
TO borepov. ei ev ovv els Arewpov elow emt TO KdTw, OVK EoTaL
avaykn tov torepov Todt yevérbar amrAGs, adAdX e& stzo-
Oécews: del yap €repov eutpocbev dvayxn éorar &v 6
éxeivo avaykn yeverOat, dor ei py eorw apxi) Tod amelpov,
ovde Mp@Toy ora ovdey uv 0 avayKatoy Exrat yevéerOal. GAG
piv ovd év Tots mépas Exovor Tovr Eorar eitetvy aAnOds, dre
amAGs dvdykn yevéoOa, ofov oixiav, Orav Oeyedwos yevn-

bs éora|léory E 7 yap avaBadifey E Badioerey] Badion F
8] re &! 8 énei] emeid) FJ! 9 ra ywopeva HJ L 10 ovy]
de F rowadtal| tadra F Il yiveoOar EL 12 Suvardy F
Tv om. J 13 dpa] dpa Bonitz, fort. recte 14 87] dé H
15 oikiay L 16 oixiay] oikia E: kai oixiayv FHJ —_ovxeért] odk €or

bdo
uv

F 18 oixeiay E yap av hy F 19 oT | as H €or

FJ 20. ante «i add. yevéoOac FHJL 21 kal... mpérepov
in marg. add. EFJ 25 €f... 338° 9 yevouevwr] de hoc loco,
v. Alexandri a.x.\X. ii. 22 (Bruns, pp. 71, 72) 25 tw kdtw E}

26. rav E)JL et Alex. 1l.c.: r6 E27FH __ rodi scripsi, cf. &! (codd.
RZ): rdde codd. omnes, &! (codd. GT), et Alex. l.c. adn’ é&
EJ, et Alex. l.c.: add’ odd’ é& HL: ov8 supra lin. add. etiam F

27 80 6] 8:6 Kai FJ 29 Ov 4] db FJ 30 €or F 31 dray
Oewédtos yevnrat om. E?

338>

60 ITEP] TENESEQS KAl ®OOPAS B

n U
Tau’ érav yap yévyntat, ef pa) del TodrTo avayKxn ylverOa.,
\ \ = > LS
cupByoera. det eivar TO évdexdpevoy pr det elvar. GAA
tal “” / > ge. > > > Pb) / 3 \ > mn € /
del rH yevéoer del civat, eb @€ GvayKns éotiv aditod n yeve-
a 9s >
ois. TO yap e€ dvdykns kal del dua (0 yap elvar dvaykn
/ ,
ovx old Te pr) elvat), dor ei Eat e& avayxns, aldidy éort,
¢ . ; / / 3 5
kat ef didiov, e€ dvayKns’ Kal €f 7 yéveots Tolvuy e€ dv-
oh mS /
dyxns, aidios 7) yéveois Tovrov, Kal ed diduos, €€ avayxns.
> ” \ r] J / . n \4 / bd) / >
el apa tivds @€ avadyxns amdAGs 7H yeveois, GvayKyn dvaKkv-
a X C4 / BA \
KAely Kal dvakdpnrew. dvayKn yap iro. mépas Exew THv
K BD) = BD) , >
yéveow 7) py, kal ef py, 1 eis 00d | KUKAM. TovTwY 0,
n >
elmep E€oTat aldvos, ovK eis EvOD oldvy TE 1d TO pNdapes el-
vat apxnv (unr av Katw ws ent Tov éovouevwy apBavo-
an > = >
Kevan, pT avyw os emt TdV yevouevwv): avayKn 8 evar ap-
f \ /
XV... 7 pHTE TEeTEpacpEeVNs ovens FT Ald.ov etvat: 81d dvdyKy
vA > 3 / ¥ Pp) / BA > 2 Oe:
KUKAw €lvar. dvtiotpedew dpa dvaykn état, olov ei Todt e&
Seeeh \ X , y > N \ ) a \ \
avaykns, Kal TO mpdrepov dpa: aAAG pip ei Totro, Kal TO
v4 3 / , »,\ lal > ‘\ en OX’
voTEpoy avaykn yeverOat. Kal TovTo det b7 TVVEXGs—ovdEV
a BY n a ,
yap Tobro diadeper A€yew ba do 7 TOAAGY. ev TH KUKA
A / x / > \ \ 3 > / € lan \
apa Kwyoe. Kal yeverer éotl TO e€ dvdykns amA@s: kal
yf 7 > / e 7 \ / \ 3
cite KUKAM, Gvaykn ExacTrov yiverOar kal yeyovéva, kal ef
avaykn, 7 To’twy yéveois KUKA@. Tadra pev 81) EvAdyws
yKn, 1 T@V YEVvETLS KA®. p Ui] YS;
evel aldios kal dAAws epavyn 7) KUKAw Kivnois Kal 7 Tod

> an (4 n 3 >) f 14 \ 4 ’
oupavod, Ort Tatra e& avaykns ylverat cal éora, doar Tav--

a ,\ @ a A > \ \ w ,
TNS KIWHoELS Kal OoaL Oia TavTnV: el yap TO KUKAW KLVOv-

b 32 dvaykn dei yiverOa roiro F 33 TO L@ (Vitelli 305. 5 et
310. 30): om. EFHJ det] det py Fs GAG... . 34 evar om. E!
34 avtov eorw EL @ 2 kai ei 7 yeveots Toivvy om. E, spatio tamen
relicto 3 7] xain H ei om. E 4 dvakukdeiy]| mepixukheiy
HJ] : wepe dvaxuxdeiv F 6 ef un, }] } fecit E (in loco plurium
capace): ) H: e py FJ 8 et 9 ws om. E et Alex. l.c. 8 Aap-
Bavopévoy EF HJ et Alex. 1.c.: AapBdvopey L 9 av av Alex. l.c.

yetvonevoy E: ytvopévwy H et Alex. l.c. dpxn E} 10 post
dpxnv excidisse quaedam suspicor | pare... ovons corrupta

pyre] uy L werepacpevns ovens] memepac ovens E. Fort. émi répas
exovons, vel én memepacpéerns eveias (cf. 6°, Vitelli 312.1), scribenda

post ovens add. cai FHL Il avriorpeder J rod] ro EJ?
12 eivacxaitdmpdérepoyv FH] dpa supra lin. (prima tamen, ut videtur,
manu) add. J 7o secundum om. E 13 87] 73n FHJ ovdev |
ovde E 14 yap rovro om. E: rotro om. &! (codd. RZ), #¢
TONG] TrAELdvaY & 16 €xagrov om. F yiverOa] yevéeoOa HJ

18 epavn cai dAXws F 19 taira] ravras H bi 1rd] 1 HJ,
et F qui rd ante xv«A@ in marg, add.

ae es 2 he el

Puders

II. 3375 32 — 338% 19 61

> £ a ° / \ 4 4 e x ¢
pevov Gel TL Kiel, avayKn Kal TOUTwWY KUKAM €ivat THY Ki-
a rn Ey oi a , c Pea
vnow—olov tis avo opas ovons 6 Atos KUKAw wdl, evel
8 otras, ai Spat bia Todro KUKAw ylvovrar Kal dvakdp-
/
mTovew, Ttovtwy 8 orm ywouevov Tmadw Ta bTd TovTwY.
ti ouv 6) more Ta pev ottw dalverat, olov vdata Kal anp
, , \ > X / o an ® \ >
KUKA@. ywomeva, Kal ei pev vedos eotat, del toa, Kal ef
iv4 ed \ / bo \ \ ”~ > >
toe ye, det Kal vedos civat, GvOpwror d€ Kal (Ga ovK ava-
f . ? ¢ \ d . di /. \ eee! >
kdpmrovew els avtovs @ote TaAW ylverOar Tov airdv (od
/
yap avdaykn, el 6 matip eyéveto, oe yevérOar add el ov,z
b] a > >A XS a ef € / > XN XN
é€xeivov), eis evOd Se Eouxey eivar aitrn 7 yeveois; apxn dé
”~ 4 v4 / € / ed >
Ths oKepews mad atryn, TdTEepov dpolws GnavTa dava-
x , lol
kdpnre. 7) ov, GAAG Ta pev ApiuG Ta dé Elder pdvor.
4 S < € > 4 € / \ v4 \
dowv pev ovv adOapros 7 ovota 7 Kiwovpevyn, pavepoy Ott Kai
>) fal o> 9 ¢€ >" ‘4 PJ tal ~ : /
apipe ravra ~orar () yap Klvnors: dxodovdet TH Kwovpeve),
4 X ~ >) \ Ud >) / a 54 > n X
dowvy S& pH GAAG POapTn, avayKn TO cider, apiOua de
“ > d \ iA 2 + 4 \ Sx Pp] iv4 4
py avaxdprrew. 610 Bdwp e€ dépos kal anp e€ Bdaros et-
dec 6 adds, ovk api: ei Sé Kal Tatra dpiOuo, Grd’ ovdx
@ ¢ > 4 4 - 3 / \ >
ov 7 ovola ylverat, ovoa To.avTyn ola EvdexerOau pur civan.
b 3 kukrX@ 6 Atos F, Bonitz di om. E emel... 4 avakap-
mrovow in marg. add. F 4 ovras] odros J: otros ovtws Bonitz

aiom, E 5 8om.E aad ra)rav8 F: navta L 6 dpaivorra
J vdata] Vdwp LO! =. 7 yiyvopevos FJ? dci kai toa FHJo!

8 xai priusom. HJ —_9Q) avrovs codd. omnes: €avrods 6! 10 6
om. E 11 d¢ prius] 67 L et (in litura) J de secundum] 67
HJ 15 ratta évy éorat HJ: tavra évéora FC 16 door]
doov E 18 ravra] ravra J 19 7 om. F! evdéxer Oar |
evdexerar FJ

-_
ow

COMMENTARY

ae Es

142 1-6. Mepi... dvopaow. A rough sketch of the subject-matter
of the work. Cf. Introd. §§ 7-11; and below, * 20> 34—21 29,
* 1b 16-17, * 27% 32-34, * 28 22.

14*1. 8€. On the systematic connexion of this work with th
de Caelo, see Introd. § 11. The dé is supposed to answer the
ev ovv in the last sentence of the de Caelo ( 3 3h 2 t)y cf. Philoponos
and Zabarella.

ney to exclude the products - réxvy and the results of
TpoaipEects (Philoponos).

1422. dpolws Kata mavTwr. Aristotle proposes to treat of yéveois *
and #6opd in general, as +46 predicable uniformly of (i.e. as pro-
cesses exhibited uniformly by) all the yevvyra xai POapra in nature.
The scope of his present inquiry does not include an investigation
of these processes in the special forms which they assume in the
different kinds of perishable natural bodies, e. g. in the plants and
animals: see Introd. § rr. For époiws, cf. * 184 25-27, 35% 26.

14% 2-3. tds... adtav. aitov, SC. yevéeoews Kat POopas. We
shall find Aristotle distinguishing and explaining the formal,
material, efficient, and final causes of these processes: hence
duaperéov. In Book I he gives their nominal definitions, i.e.
defines the meaning of the terms (cf. Introd. p. xxvi, note 1;
p. xxx): their adequate scientific definitions (rots Adyovs) are to be
gathered from the discussions in Book II, from which we can
obtain an exact conception of their cause (cf. Introd. § 9).

14° 3-6. ér.. . dvduacw. The scope of the work includes
a similar treatment of at€yo1s and édAoiwors. Aristotle, as we
shall see, restricts the term avgéyous, as he here investigates it, to
the growth of ra éuvxa. We must therefore not press éuotws xard
mévtwv (22) as regards avéyow. The meaning of dédAAotwars will
appear later. The problem whether yéveois and dAXotwors are
two distinct processes, or one only, is expressly mentioned,
because many of Aristotle’s predecessors identified them, i. e.
denied that there was any ‘coming-to-be’ proper: cf. next note.

14° 6—17* 31. tav...gaow. Zabarella’s account of the general

A. I. 314% I-9 63

purport of this passage is right. The review of the theories of
the early philosophers in Chapter 1 shows that it is a matter of
dispute whether yéveous and POopa are, i.e. occur as facts distinct
from dAAotwors ; and it is therefore necessary explicitly to discuss
ei ote yéveots, and to prove dru gore (cf. 15% 26-27). But even
those philosophers, who dd distinguish yéveois fromm dAXoiwors,
misunderstood yéveois. For yéveous is the emergence of a new
substance (cf. 17% 20-22), and not—as they supposed—the
‘ association ’ e. g. of ‘indivisible bodies ’ (or ‘ indivisible surfaces ’)
to form an aggregative whole. Hence the long discussion in
Chapter 2 of the theories of Leukippos and Demokritos (and
incidentally of the cognate theory of Plato) is primarily directed

to show that ovyxpiois and didxpuors cannot be identified with

yéeveois and Oop, although they may facilitate the latter processes.
The proof dru éorw 7 yéveors (i.e. that the emergence of a new
substance occurs in fact) begins with Chapter 3.

14°6—b8,. tov... pyévtwv. Outline :—The ancient philosophers
may be grouped as (1) those who recognized only one elementary
substance, and (ii) those who recognized more than one. The
monists are logically bound to identify, and the pluralists to
distinguish, yeveows and dAdoiwors (* 6-13). It is only because
Anaxagoras failed to understand the logical implications of his
own statements, that he appears to be an exception to this rule.
He says that yéveors and 6opd are identical with dAAoiwors, and
yet he is a pluralist no less than Empedokles, Leukippos, and
Demokritos. ‘These philosophers are all pluralists, though their
theories differ, and though the theory of Empedokles is actually
‘contrary’ to that of Anaxagoras (213-1). The monists must
identify yéveois and dAdoiwors, because all change must, on their
view, be the modification of a single persistent substratum. The
pluralists mast distinguish yéveois and dAXofwors, because yéveois
and ¢Oopa result, on their view, from the ‘consilience’ and
‘ dissolution ’ of the Many—as in fact Empedokles says (? 1-8).

14° 6-7. thv ... yéveow, ‘the so-called “unqualified coming-
to-be”.’ Cf. ra xadovpeva ororxeia, *22> 1-2, 28> gr. According
to the monists the so-called dAj yéveors is really dAXoiwors.
Similarly, according to Aristotle, the so-called ‘elements’ (Earth,
Air, Fire, and Water) are really derivative.

(1429. kal... yevv@or.. Explanatory of dco....A€yovor.. Thales,
e. g., said that ‘ the universe was one something ’, in the sense that
all things were made out of Water.

va COMMENTARY

142 13-15. kairo... dddovodobar. Anaxagoras accused the
Hellenes of miscalling the facts: ovdé yap xpyya yiverar ovd°
dmédAvtat, GAN dd eovtwv xpynpdtwv cvppioyeral Te Kat Siaxpiverac.
kat ovtws av dpOds Kadolev tO Te yiverOar cupployerOar Kai Td
amdbd\Avobat Siaxpiver Oar (fr. 17; Diels, pp. 320-1). At first sight,
this dictum, since it identifies yeveors and POopa with cvppugis and
Sidxpuris, distinguishes yéveows from ddXotwois: for Anaxagoras’s
view looks like the views of Empedokles and Leukippos. But
Aristotle’s interpretation is justified by the peculiar character of
Ta éovra xpypara in Anaxagoras’s system, which gives a special
meaning to ovpptéis and didxpiors. . Cf. e.g. fr. 1, 4, 10, 12
(Diels, pp. 313-18) and Arist. Phys. 187% 26-30. '

It is difficult to reproduce the force of ye (213): perhaps
‘ Anaxagoras himself failed to understand his own utterance ’—viz.
statements like thatin fr.17. #yvonoer i. q. non intellexit (Bonitz,
Ind. s.v.). It is Anaxagoras who misuses language. If he had
understood his own utterance, he could not also have said that
the elements were many.

14°15. xaOdwep kai érepor, ‘in common with others’, e. g.
those whom Aristotle has quoted as typical pluralists.

14°17. Ta... dpiOudv. +a xwotvra are Love and Strife
(@iAdrns and Neixos). Empedokles conceived them as corporeal
. elements (cf. * 338 19-20 ; Burnet, p. 232) as Aristotle is well aware.
Still it is natural enough to call Earth, Air, Fire, and Water ra
owparika in his system par excellence.

14* 1g. Td dporonepy. In Aristotle’s system the émovopep? are the
first, or most rudimentary, compound natural bodies (Introd. § 11).
Every dpoupepés is a chemical compound of the same four
‘simple’ bodies (Earth, Air, Fire, Water) or—more precisely—
of the same four ‘elementary qualities’ (Hot, Cold, Dry, Moist).
The four constituents enter into combination in a determinate
quantitative proportion, which differs in the different dovpepa ;
so that each dépouopepés is characterized by its distinctive
‘combining-formula’ (Adyos rjs pi€ews). Under the head of
épowopepy are included the metals, wood and bark in plants,
bone, flesh, marrow, blood, &c., in animals.. Such compounds
are called éyovoyepj, because (however far they may be subdivided)
each portion retains the character of the whole: bone, e.g., will
not cease to be bone by subdivision, but only by chemical
analysis. In Aristotle’s system the émoupepy are intermediate
between the ‘simple’ bodies and the dvopovopeph or dpyava, each of

| —_— +.) ee

AS 304* ¥3-24 ; . 65

which is a complex of different dpovopep7. An eye, e.g., or
a hand, is a ovvOeors of many different duoromepy. (Cf. * 21> 19-22,
A. 10, B. 1-3, 7, 8 with the notes : and my paper on ‘ Aristotle’s con-
ception of chemical combination’ in the Journal of Philology, No. 57.)

Aristotle employs his own technical terms in his accounts of
the views of his predecessors. Thus the terms vAy and croxeiov
were not used by .Empedokles, Leukippos, Demokritos, or
Anaxagoras, though Aristotle’s statements here and elsewhere
might lead us to suppose that they were (cf. Burnet, § 14, § 130).
Similarly ‘there is no evidence that Anaxagoras used the term
dpovonepy. He may have used the term dépoopéperar, but even
that is doubtful. We know, however, that Aristotle applies
the term dépovoyepy to what Anaxagoras called owéppara (cf. de
Caelo 302% 31—» 3), but we do not know how far the characteristics
of the Aristotelian dépovopepy attach to Apaxagoras’s ‘seeds’.
Were the oréppata révrwv xpyparov (cf. e. g. fr. 4; Diels, p. 315)
opotopepy merely in the sense that each ‘seed’ retained its
distinctive character however minutely it was subdivided, and is
this all that Aristotle meant to imply? Or were the ‘ seeds ’—
either in Anaxagoras’s own intention, or at least in Aristotle’s
interpretation—quantitatively different combinations of the same
contrary ‘qualities’ ?

It is impossible to answer this question with any certainty.
The reader should consult Burnet (§§ 127-31) and Carlo
Giussani’s edition of Lucretius (1896, vol. ii, pp. 147-50). These
are, so far as I know, the best attempts to reconstruct
Anaxagoras’s theory of matter: but neither of them is completely
successful, since each leaves some of the fragments inexplicable.

14°20. tov... éotiv: ‘everything élse which is such that
part and whole are the same in name and nature.’ For ovveévepa
éyerar Gv 76 Te dvopa Kowov Kal 6 Kata Tovvona Adyos THs odoias
6 airés, Cat. 196. —

14° 21-24. Anpoxpitos...tovtwv. According to Leukippos
and Demokritos the ‘indivisible bodies’, or ‘atoms’, are infinite
in number and infinitely various in shape. Everything else in the
universe is put together out of these atoms: and the compounds
(aira, * 23) differ from one another because of (i) a difference in the
shape, or (ii) a different position or ‘turning’, or (ili) a different
ordering or ‘grouping’, of the component atoms. (Cf. A/etaph. 985°
15-19; also below, 15> 6-15, 15> 33—168 2, * 25> 36—26* 24.)

ara mpods airdé (EJL) is clearly right, and is accepted by Diels

2254 F

66 COMMENTARY

(p. 345). The compounds differ ‘one as compared with another ’,
not ‘as comiparen with themselves’. For the idiom, cf. perhaps
aAXo mpos aAXo.

For Oécet (i. q. tporp) and rage re q. diadcyn), cf. * 15> 33—168 2.

14224. yép. There is no sufficient reason to desert EJ and
read Sé for ydp. The logical connexion is rather complicated,
but it is not made clearer by d¢. The comparison of Anaxagoras
with the Atomists (# 18-24) is parenthetical, and at * 24 Aristotle
returns to justify the original statement (# 16-18) that Empedokles
postulates six elements, whilst Anaxagoras postulates an infinite
number. ‘The statement is correct, ‘for the views of the school
of Anaxagoras seem diametrically opposed to those of the followers
of Empedokles’, &c. (24-1). It is assumed throughout that
the épovopepy are infinite in number, as indeed Anaxagoras says
with regard to his orépyara (fr. 4; Diels, p. 315).

14224—b1. évayting . . . todtwv. Cf. de Caelo 302%28—) 5,
Aristotle there says that Anaxagoras (i) regarded Air and Fire as
piypara of all the dpuoopepy, i.e. of all the ‘seeds’, (ii) used the
term ‘ Aether ’ for Fire, and (ili) held therefore that all things come-
to-be out of Air and Fire (cf. fr. 1; Diels, pp. 313-14).

Nothing in the fragments justifies Aristotle’s assertion heve that
Earth and Water (as well as Air and Fire) are each a zavo7reppia.
On the contrary, Aristotle’s statement appears to conflict with
fr. 4 (Diels, p. 315), where Earth seems to be on the same level of
simplicity as the ‘ contraries’ and the ‘ seeds’.

14° 27-28. odpxa . . . duoropep@v, ‘flesh, bone, and bodies
which, like these, are “homoeomeries”’: cf. 142 19-20, and
de Caelo, |.C., Ta yap dpoopeph ororxeia (A€yw 8 olov odpKa Kat
écT0vv Kat TOV ToLOvTwWY EKacToY).

14°29. tavoxeppiay. This appears to be a technical term of
Demokritos: cf. de Anima 404° 1-5, Phys. 203% 18-23. But it
is probable enough that Anaxagoras used it, since he used the
term o7épyata (Burnet, p. 265,). The same meaning is expressed
in the de Caelo, 1. c., by the words dépa 8 kal rip piypara rovTwr Kat
TOV GAXwV OTEpLaTwV TAYTOV.

14> 3. pévew, sc. ‘for they must affirm that the underlying
something always remains...’ It is not necessary to read pévet
(cf J ©!) with Bonitz.

14° 3-4. 76 8€ tovodrov, sc. 7d petaBdAdrAcw Tod adrod Kal évds
pevovTos, TOD broKeipévov Sndrovdrt (Philoponos).

1457-8. déyer. . . peyévtov. kai “EpzredoxAjs, i.e. Empe-

A. I. 314% 24— 22 67

dokles as well as Anaxagoras (cf. 14% 14). Aristotle is abbreviat-
_ ing Empedokles, fr. 8 (Diels, p.175). The words pigis . . . puyév-
twv are quoted again below, cf. *33"15-16. In spite of Burnet’s
ingenious interpretation of fr. 8 (cf. Burnet, p. 205,), I think that
by ¢vo1s Empedokles there means ‘ coming-to-be’, or at least that
Aristotle so understands him. For dvous = yeveous, cf. Phys.193% 12.

14> 8-12. dt... Aeyopeva. Aristotle recapitulates, and prepares
to criticize, the pluralist position. ‘It is clear (i) that to describe
coming-to-be and passing-away in these terms is in accordance
with their fundamental assumption, and (ii) that they do in fact
so describe them.’

6 Adyos, sc. the description‘ of yéveors and Oopa as
a consilience and dissociation of the many elements. 77 trobécet,
viz. their assumption that there are more elements than one. xat
rovtows, i.e. ‘the pluralists as well as ordinary people’, e.g. as
well as Aristotle himself. Aristotle appeals in confirmation to
ordinary experience : épapev, » 13.

14>12-13. todto . . . oumdetv. rotro, sc. that the pluralists
(i) must recognize dAAotwors as a distinct fact from yéveows, and
(ii) cannot do so consistently with their statements. The first
point is established (> 13-15) by an appeal to the obvious facts of
perception: and the second point is argued » 15-26.

1415-26. od phy... dddAolwors. This argument is intended to
apply to all the pluralists, since Aristotle has set out to prove that
their statements are incompatible with the recognition of aAAotwors.
Yet, at > 20, he quotes Empedokles, and thenceforward proceeds
as if Empedokles alone were in question. Thus, though he
Speaks as if ad// ‘those who posit more “ original reals” (dpyas,
b16) than one’ regarded the wzdé6y involved in dAXoiwois as
- constitutive of their ‘elements’, he offers no evidence of this
assertion except so far as it applies to Empedokles.

14>17. Ta... . cupBaiver. Aristotle here assumes his own
theory of dAAotwors, viz. that it is a process in which a perceptible
substratum passes from one aos to another contrasted zd6os.
The za6y in question are the za@yrixai oryntes Of the
Categories (9% 28 ff.). Cf. * 17% 23-27, * 19°6—20* 7, * 19> 8-10,
* 218 $=ro.

14> 20. *EpmeSoxdjjs. Cf. fr. 21, vv. 3 and 5 (Aristotle omits
v. 4); Diels, p. 180. | .

14> 22. tav AounGy, sc. crovyetwv, or. possibly (as Philoponos
interprets) zaév. |

F 2

So . COMMENTARY

1423-24. dot... yiv. px dSvvarov, sc. according to Em-
pedokles : cf. * 15# 4-8.

14> 24. éorat, sc. duvarov yiver Oat. |

14> 25-26. rotto... dddoiwors. ‘Yet this is what Alteration
essentially is.’ For qv, cf. * 28% 2, 31° 23.

14> 26—15* 3. 4... dAdolwors. Two corollaries. (i) Every
change (viz. Alteration, Growth and Diminution, and Motion)
takes place between contrary poles (cf. * 19> 6—z20%7); these
contrary poles must be informations of a single matter. (ii) If.
A alters into B, A and B must be modifications of a single sué-
stratum ; and, conversely, if A and B are modifications of a single
substratum, change of A into B (or vice versa) is Alteration.

The second corollary (14> 28 éru... 15% 3 dAXoiwors) is not very
clearly expressed. Aristotle appears to mean that so far as any
changing things have a single substratum, their change is
Alteration: and wice versa. The position of the monists
(14> 1-4) is an extreme case, where a// things are modifications of
a single substratum, and (correspondingly) a// change is Alteration.

15° 3-25. “Eumedoxdfs ... dow. Not only does Empedokles
so conceive his elements that dAAotwors becomes impossible
(14° 17-26); his whole position is in conflict with the facts and
full of inconsistency.

15* 4-8. dua... €xaorov. According to Empedokles, the four
‘roots’ (Earth, Air, Fire, and Water) were eternal and unchange-
able: cf. * 25> 19-25, 29> 1, 338 16-18; Burnet, p. 230. There is
no coming-to-be or passing-away : cf. fr.8; 12; 17, Vv. 34; 21,v. 13
(Diels, pp. 175, 176,179,181). ‘Love’, when it has obtained the
mastery, brings all things together into one, viz. into the ‘Sphere’ ;
but it does not make a unity of them, but only a ‘together’. ©
Aristotle substitutes for the ‘all-togetherness ’ of Empedokles an
‘all-oneness’, i.e. he interprets the statement about Love
bringing all things zzZo one as if it meant that Love reduces all
things to the One. But even when all things are together in the
‘Sphere’, the four roots remain ‘ what they were’ and unreduced
(cf. Burnet, p. 235,). Hence Aristotle’s charge of inconsistency
depends upon a misinterpretation. No doubt, he thought that
the irreducibility of Empedokles’ elements was in conflict with
the plain facts: for he regarded the transmutation of Earth, Air,
Fire, and Water into one another as given in experience. But
that is another matter. .

15* 8-11. dor’... oxAnpdv. Assuming that in the ‘Sphere’ all

A. I. 3145 233159 22 69

things are fused into a unity, Aristotle urges that, when Love
begins to go out and Strife to come in, the elements come into
being as distinct things. For an ‘addition’ and ‘subtraction’ of
the wda8y which distinctively characterize the elements then
occur: so that, whereas e.g. Moist and Hot were originally
distributed uniformly over the ‘Sphere’, Hot is ow added here
and subtracted ¢heve, Moist subtracted eve and added “ere.
Hence ¢4is portion becomes separated from /hat, this being
distinctively Moist (i.e. Water) and ¢hat. distinctively Hot
(i.e. Fire).

15° 9. xwptLopdvey: genitive absolute, the implied. subject
being various portions of the ‘Sphere’, two of which are specified
(rd wey... 7d dé) as the’subjects of the main sentence. For the
construction, cf. 15> 3; Bonitz, Zzd. 149 37-45 and commentary
on Metaph. 99014. Just below (#16) ywpi<ecOa is applied to
the za6y.

15*14. 00... viv, dre, sc. at the period when Empedokles
seems to recognize that the elements come-to-be, viz. when Love
first begins to go out of the ‘Sphere’ and Strife to come in.

viv, sc. at the period in which we are living, i. e. when Strife is
gaining the mastery (cf. 3426-7; Burnet, pp. 234-5).

I5* 15-19. €oT.... wav. ore Svvdpeva, SC. Ta 7AOy.

According to Empedokles, it was the conflict between Strife
and Love which caused the separation of the qualities when the
disintegration of the ‘ Sphere’ first began. Hence we havea right
to infer that the qualities can be ‘added’ and ‘subtracted’ in the
present state of the world too, since that conflict is still going on.

15* 17-19. Siudwep ... wav. ‘It was owing to this ‘conflict of
Love and Strife that they’ (i.e. the elements) ‘were generated
from a One at the former period also. I say“ generated”, for
presumably Fire, Earth, and Water had no distinctive existence
at all while merged 1 in one.’

It is necessary for Aristotle to justify his use of. the. term
éyervyOnoav, since Empedokles asserts that the elements are
eternal. Bekker reads tdwp ér dvra in *19, which he wrongly
attributes to HL. H has some illegible characters under védwp:
otherwise there is no trace of anything between véwp and dévra,

15* 22. peraBdddovta ...xivnow. The ‘ Motion’ is the didxpiors
initiated by Strife: but Empedokles is severely criticized below

(3 3° 22—34*9) for the vagueness and meas of his account

of xivyors.

ie "COMMENTARY

A. 2

15° 26-28. “Ohws... dddoudcews. Cf. *14*6—17931. ‘The
real problem is :—How many distinct forms of change are there,
and how precisely are they distinguished from one another? Are
there three forms of change—Coming-to-be, Growth, Alteration—
differing from one another in principle? And, if so, what is the
distinctive manner of their occurrence ? :

15° 27-28. wepi...xwioes. It is difficult, if not impossible,
to defend the accusative here, since the examples are in the
genitive. Perhaps Aristotle wrote wept tis aAAys Kuyoews. The
reading of D> (epi rév dAAwv Kwwjoewv) is an obvious attempt to
emend the text. E adds dm\as after dXdas (cf. also F and I):
but this has probably arisen from a mere dittography of dAdas.
For the distinction between dzAat and puxral xwyjoes (cf. de Caelo
3026, 3035, and also Mefaph. 1053% 9) is between ‘simple’ and
‘composite’ movements (cf. Introd. § ro) and is totally irrelevant
here. There is no manuscript authority for rept tov a\Awv ardov
xwnoewv—the reading of Bekker and Prantl. ,

15* 29-33. MAdtwv... mpdypaow. Cf. Plato, Zimaeus 52 dff.,
where the yéveous of the physical universe in its present orderly
constitution is described. God shapes and orders the chaotic
material, controlling it with figures and numbers, and bringing it
into conformity with the Intelligible Pattern. In particular, God
develops Earth, Air, Fire, and Water into their present distinctive
characters out of their pre-existing chaotic rudiments. Each of
these bodies, as the work of God has fashioned them, consists of
particles whose shape is that of one of the ‘regular’ solids: and
these solids are constructed out of planes whose ultimate com-
ponents belong to one or the other of two types of triangle (cf. * 164
2-4, *25> 19-25, * 298 13-24).

Later on in the Zimaeus (73 b ff.) Plato describes the yéveows of
‘flesh, bone, and the like’. He regards them as developed out
of pvedds, which is itself formed by God out of selected elementary
triangles by a process of pigis. He does not, however, explain
wherein precisely God’s ‘ mixing’ of the triangles consists ; and
his account of the formation of bone and flesh from the pvedds
(73 eff.) is fanciful, and anything but precise. At the same time,
it might fairly be said that Aristotle’s own account of the yéveots
of the dpuovopepy is equally vague. The difference between e. g.
flesh and bone is a difference of the combining-formulae: but

A. 2. 315% 26—h1o0 41

we are never told what exactly the Adyos rhs pigews Of odpé or of
écrodv IS.

15* 32. t@v ToLtovTwy, SC. Tv dpovopepar, Cf. * 14% 27-28.

15" 84-35. tepl odSevds ... wept dmdvtwv. It is clear both from
the neuter, and from the examples (151-6), that Aristotle is
accusing his predecessors of neglecting to explain ‘every one of
the problems which the subject involves’ (e.g. pigis, woveiv Kai
mracxew, apy) and not merely of neglecting to explain the different
forms of change.

15° 35-1. obtos . . . Suabépew. ‘ Demokritos, however, does
seem not only to have thought carefully about all the problems,
but also to be distinguished from the outset by his method.’
The superiority of his method is explained below, 166 ff.

15> 1-6. otre . . . moumoers. These lines expand and enforce
15°34 (dAws . . . éxéoryoev). Aristotle himself discusses the
manner of the accession of new material in Growth (A. 5),-zovety
kai maoxew (A. 7-9), and pigs (A. 10). For the construction of
mpoovovtos, Cf. * 1549.

15> 6-g. Anpoxpitos... dddoiwow. Cf. * 14% 21-24. Aristotle’s
statement here must not be taken as meaning that the Atomists
made no use of differences of figure in explaining the different
‘secondary’ qualities: see * 15> 33—-16° 2.

The Atomists appear to have called their ‘indivisible bodies’
oxypara or idear: cf. Burnet, p. 336.

1559-10. émel... haiverOar. Cf. 25% 23-24, de Anima 404% 25-
31, Metaph. 1009%11-17. In the last passage Demokritos is
represented first as arguing from the conflicting appearances of
sense ‘that there is either nothing true, or what is true is not
clear to us’: and ext as supposing that ‘to know’ is to perceive
and ‘to perceive’ is to be changed in bodily state, and so con-
cluding that ‘ what appears on the evidence of the senses must be’
true’. In the de Anima (l.c.) he is said to have identified yvxy
(i.e. the source of movement and sensation) and vois, ‘for 76
aAnOés is identical with rd darvopevov’.

It does not seem possible to extract from the fragments of
Demokritos a consistent view as to (i) the ‘reality’ of the
‘secondary’ qualities, and (ii) the capacity of ato@yo1s and thought
to attain to truth. We are told that flavours, colours, and perhaps
temperature, are only by ‘convention’ (véu@): whilst in reality
(éreq) there are ‘atoms’ and the ‘void’, Yet the ‘secondary ’
qualities are explained as due to differences in the figure, ‘grouping’

72 COMMENTARY

and ‘turning’ of the atoms: and differences of //avourat any
rate are treated as being vead/y differences of figure (cf. * 15> 33—
162 2, * 25> 36—26%24). And although Demokritos condemns
the ‘bastard’ (axoriy) knowledge of sense and contrasts it with
the ‘true-born’ (yvyoin) knowledge of the understanding, he also
denies that we can know anything as it really is and criticizes the
understanding on the ground that it depends on the senses:
cf. fr. 6-11, 117, 125 (Diels, pp. 388-9, 407-8).

15>11. dmeipa, infinite both in number and in variety:
cf. 14° 22.

15> 11-15. @ote... ypappdtwy. ‘ Hence—owing to the changes
of the compound—/¢e same thing seems different and conflicting
to different people: it is transposed by a small additional
ingredient, and appears utterly other by the transposition of
a single constituent. For Tragedy and Comedy are both com-
posed of che same letters.’

Tragedy and Comedy, though utterly contrasted in their effects
on us, are really ‘the same thing’, i.e. composed of the same
letters. The constituents are the same: the change is a change
of the ‘compound’. Similarly the same atoms, as constituting
different perceptible things (different compounds), present con-
flicting appearances. The addition of a small ingredient (e. g. of
a single new atom) may cause the original constituents to shift
their places: and the transposition of even a single atom involves
a ‘change of the compound’, and is thus enough to. make the
whole appear entirely different.

The illustration from Tragedy and Comedy is sedbahly
quoted from the Atomists (cf. Diels, Z/ementum, p. 13). Philo-
ponos gives other examples, which seem to be drawn from
Demokritos: but his interpretation of ovyxeévov as rod ovr-
tévtos 76 civOerov is impossible. Apart from the grammatical
difficulty, Demokritos would never have admitted that the Atom
itself changes.

15> 15-24. éwet... meipatéov. Leukippos, Demokritos, Anaxa-
goras, and Empedokles (according to Aristotle) maintain doth
that yéveous is distinct from dAXolwors, and that yéveors and pOopa
are respectively an ‘ associating’ and a ‘ dissociating’ of elementary
constituents, whilst éAAofwors is a change of the thing’s qualities.
If we develop the logical implications of these theses, we shall
find ourselves entangled in ézopia.—dilemmas, antinomies. An
aropia is a pair of incompatible conclusions, both of which seem

A. 2. 315> 11-31 | 13

to follow from logically convincing arguments. It is therefore
like a tangle, or-a knot, by which our intelligence is bound and
enmeshed. We can neither accept nor reject it: and we cannot
advance until we have ‘ unravelled’ one or more of the arguments
which form the knot (cf. e.g. Mefaph. 995° 30-33, Z. WV. 1146 24-
27: Bonitz, Jnd. s.v. diadvew, 184* 43 ff.; Burnet, Z7ics, Introd.
§ 25).

15> 20-24. ei... wetpatéov: a somewhat hasty outline of the
main dzropia to which the two theses lead. Thus (a) we cannot
identify yéveous and ‘cvyxpuois, for many impossible consequences
result from the identification. And yet we must identify them,
for convincing arguments compel us to do so. (b) We must
identify yéveois and ovyxpucrs: for if we do not, we shall have to
choose between denying yéveous altogether, and identifying it with
» ddXdoiwors.

The second dzopéa (b) is an indirect proof that yéveous must be
avykpiots by a reductio ad absurdum. ‘If yéveois is not ovyxpiors,
a dilemma results, both limbs of which conflict with the pluralists’
first thesis: for either there is no yéveois at all, or it is identical
with dAdolwors.’ Hence, if we still wish to maintain that coming-
to-be is not ‘association’, ‘we must endeavour to unravel this
dilemma too’ (i. e. as well as the Adyou érepou dvayKacrixoi referred
to at 15> 21), ‘and a stubborn one we shall find it’.

The proposed interpretation involves the omission of «i (with
EHJ) in ? 24, as a dittograph of 7. -A possible alternative is to
retain ei, and omit dv (with ET, cf. H) as a reduplication of the’last

syllable of yaAerdv :—‘ Or, however difficult it may be to unravel
this dilemma too, we must make the attempt ’.
15> 26-27. tav .. . d8vaipérwy, ‘because the primary reals

are indivisible magnitudes’: cf. > 28 «i peyéOn, ‘if the primary
_ reals are indivisible magnitudes . . .’

15°28. Siapéper... wAetorov. If the primary reals are indivisible
magnitudes, yéveois must take place by ovyxpiois. If there are no
indivisible magnitudes, yéveors need not (though it still may) take
place by ovyKpuris (Philoponos).

15° 30. ey TO Tipatw. TZimaeus 53 ff.: cf. * 15% 29-33, and
below.

15> 31. év dANows. Cf. de CaeloT. 1, 7, A. 2, where Plato’s theory
is criticized. The paradox (cf. de Caelo T. 1, 299% 6-11) consists
in stopping at planes (jéypu éwurédwv): for the same principles,
which induce Plato to resolve bodies into planes, ought

74 COMMENTARY

to have led him to resolve planes into lines and lines into
points, and thus to have constructed bodies out of points or
monads.

155 33—16° 2. Sums... xpopatiferOa. Cf. 148 21-24, 1556-15,
25%23—be, We have sufficient evidence to justify Aristotle’s
statement that the Atomists explained yéveors and ¢@opa by
ovykpiois and dudkpiots. They admitted as vea/ an infinite plurality
of ‘indivisible bodies’ (atoms), imperceptible owing to their
minuteness, differing from one another in figure and size, and
moving in the ‘ void’ (which is also ‘real’ ina sense: cf. * 25% 26—
32) in all directions and with different velocities. ‘The perceptible
things of ordinary experience ‘come-to-be’, because many atoms
of congruous figures are brought together by their movements.
Being brought together, they ‘hold together’ in so far as they
get entangled or mechanically attached (e.g. hooked together).
And when their cohesion is overcome—e. g. by a more powerful
movement of the surrounding atoms-—the perceptible thing
‘passes-away’. (Cf. Diels, pp. 343 § 1, 346 §§ 14-15, 359 § 37;
Burnet, Greek Philosophy, §§ 77-83.)

On the other hand, there is considerable obscurity in the
Atomists’ theory of the ‘secondary’ qualities of the perceptible
things (colour, sound, flavour, temperature, &c.) and consequently
in their conception of the change of such qualities, i.e. in their
account of dAAoiwors (cf. *15%9-10, *25>34—26%6). The
‘secondary’ qualities, though ‘conventional’ and not ‘real’, have
a veal basis in the figures, the sizes, the ‘grouping’ and the
‘turning’ of the constituent atoms; and some of them at least
(e.g. flavours) appear to be explained as veal/y differences of
figure (cf. Arist. de Sensu 442% 10-12, below * 25> 36—26% 24 ;
Theophr. de Sensu, §§ 60-82, quoted by Diels, pp. 375-9). Now,
if different flavours are vea/ly different figures, how can there be
a change of flavour, i.e. dAAotwors in the qualities of taste? The
atoms do not change their figure. Are we to suppose that
a change in the ‘grouping’ or ‘turning’ of the atoms makes their
figures appear different? But there is no indication that Demo-
kritos distinguished between veal and apparent figure, or that he
ascribed flavour to apparent figure. Perhaps Demokritos would
have appealed to the principle enunciated above (15> 11-15).
When milk, e.g., ‘alters’ from sweet to sour, what has veal/y
happened is that a few atoms of one figure have gone out of the
compound and been replaced by atoms of a different figure.

A. 2. 315> 333164 4 75

But if so, is there any difference in principle between dAAolwors
and yéveors or POopa ?

At 33, EJ read épotws; but duws is clearly required. The
Atomists’ technical terms for oyjpa, Oéors, and rdéis were puopds,
tpomy, and diabvyyn (Metaph. 985 15-19). Diels (p. 710, note on
P- 344, 1. 4) interprets diaPvyy as ‘inter-contact’. Beare (p. 37,)
suggests it may be diafiyy, i.e. a dialectic form of diaOjKn (sc.
dudBeois). EJL®° read diabyyp here (> 35): but, in view of 27% 18
(Siabiy7 FHJ, om. E, d:a6yy7j L), we should hardly be justified in
introducing dvaOyy7q or SiaOyxy. For peraxwoidvra, cf. 15> 13, 14.

16*1-2. 8d . . . xpwpariLeoOar. A parenthetical corollary.
Demokritos is entitled to deny the ‘reality’ of colour, since
(according to his theory) things get coloured owing to the
‘turning’ of their constituent atoms. Demokritos appears to
have recognized black, white, green, and red as primary colours,
out of which all other colours were formed by mixture (Beare, pp.
30-7). He also seems to have identified ‘ white’ with ‘smooth’
and ‘black’ with ‘rough’ (Arist. de Sensu 442> 11-12): and the
present passage suggests that the ‘smoothness’ or ‘roughness.’
depends upon the way in which the atoms are turned. The
things which get coloured—or which appear coloured, owing to
the ‘turning’ of their atoms—are the objects of vision, i.e. the
‘images’ (defxeAa or eldwAa) thrown off from bodies (Burnet,
Greek Philosophy, p. 196)...

Theophrastos, however, represents Demokritos as ascribing
the differences of texture (e.g. smoothness and roughness) in
the objects of vision to differences of figure in the atoms, and not
merely to differences of their ‘turning’: cf. Theophr. de Sensu,
§§ 73-82 (Diels, pp. 377-9). In 16% 1 HJ read xpouynv, which Diels
(p. 715) rejects as probably not a genuine survival of the dialect.

1622-4. tots . . . attav. The Platonists cannot, with their
assumptions, construct dAAolwors as well as yéveors. Nothing but
solids results from ‘putting together’ planes: but dAAotwors
means change of qualities, and therefore presupposes qualities in
the things which alter. And it is impossible to generate a quality
by ‘ putting together’ planes—the Platonists do not even attempt -
it. The last clause (zd0o0s yap . . . a’rév) supports the clause before
it (oddé& yap... cvvTiMepévwv), which itself justifies Aristotle’s asser-
tion that the Platonists cannot construct ddAolwors as well as
yeveots.

L and F (in the margin) read ovwvtiMepevwv Kara. rXaros, which

76 COMMENTARY

would mean ‘by being superimposed’ (cf. de Caelo 299> 23-31).
But the elementary triangles of the Zimaeus are not superimposed
to form the ‘elements’. They are ‘put together’ so as to
constitute the: planes containing a solid, i.e. they are ‘put
together’ xara ypaypyv. We must reject xara wAdros as the
addition of a scribe, who misunderstood Aristotle’s criticisms
both hére and in the de Cae/lo, |.c.

16* 8, cuveipew: intransitive, cf. 18°13, Phys. 262° 16.

164 8-10. ot... pdov: ‘... those whom devotion to abstract
discussions has rendered unobservant of the facts are too ready
to dogmatize on the basis of a few observations.’

Adyou, sc. dialectical discussions: cf. 16411 (Aoyixds), Metaph.
987 31, 1050? 35.

Ta brdpxovta, sc. ‘ the facts’ as contrasted with a priori theories :
cf. Bonitz, Jd. s.v., who rightly quotes de Caelo 29722, Post.
Anal. 81» 23 in illustration of the present passage.

16712. of... €orat. The Platonists argue that there must be
atomic magnitudes, ‘ because otherwise ‘“‘The Triangle” will be
more than one’. For their argument, cf. de Zin. Jnsec. 968° 9-14
with my notes. |

In ®12, dr adtd 7d tTpfywvov (E) is on the whole the most
probable reading. J’s od daci is an obvious correction due to
misunderstanding of dz.

16* 13-14. Anpoxpttos . . . mpoiotow. The ‘arguments appro-
priate to the subject, i.e. drawn from the science of nature’,
which convinced Demokritos, are reproduced and answered in
the discussion which follows.

16° 14—17*17. €xet... ékattévwv. (i) The thesis that a body |
is divisible through and through (i.e. the denial of indivisible
magnitudes) leads to impossible results. Hence we seem to be
forced to main/ain that there are indivisible magnitudes (16% 14-
> 16). But (ii) the latter thesis also leads to impossible results,
as Aristotle claims to have shown elsewhere. Hence we seem
forced to deny that there are indivisible magnitudes (16> 16-18).

We are thus entangled in an dzropia (cf. * 15> 15-24), and this
is solved by showing that the arguments, which apparently compel
us to accept indivisible magnitudes, involve a faulty inference
(16> 18—17" 17).

16°14. dmopiav. The.term is used rather loosely here: ‘a diffi-
culty’. But an dzopéa in the full and strict sense is developed
in the following passage: cf. 16519, and the preceding note.

A, 2. 316% 8-19 "7

16715-16. ei ts . . . 8uvatdv. The denial of indivisible magni-
tudes is equivalent to the thesis that ‘a body (i.e. a magnitude)
is divisible through and through’. But this thesis, i interpreted
without careful qualification, leads (as we shall see) to the absurdity
that the constituents of a body are either ‘ points” or ‘nothings’ :—
or that there is nothing in the body which escapes the division,
i.e, that the whole body is consumed in the dividings.

16* 17-18. kav... Suypynta. It is“tempting to omit rodro in
«18 (with !), since it must mean 7d oda, whereas in *16 and
417 it means 76 wavry diapeOjvar. F reads ... toto rdvty
dinpypévov, kai ei py) da todro Suppyra. The addition of zdvry,
though it gives the right sense, is unnecessary, and is probably
due to the wavry in ®17._ And the second roiro only tends to
throw suspicion on the first.

Translate: ‘then it might be at one and the same moment
divided through and through, even though the dividings had
not been effected simultaneously ’.

16719. kav... addvatov. Cf. 2747-14, where Aristotle refers
to the present passage. His argument presupposes the definition
.of 76 duvarev which is given in the AZetaphysics (1047% 24-26) :—
‘A thing is dvvarév so far as, if it actually does (or is) that which
it has the power to do (or be), nothing ddvvarov results’. By
advvarov we must understand ‘ inconceivable’, ‘self-contradictory ’
(cf. e.g. Metaph. 1047>3-14). Hence x is dvuvarov civar y,
provided that, if x actually is (or becomes) y, the ‘being’ of x
is not eo ipso destroyed ; i.e. provided that y is not incompatible
with some feature constitutive of the essential nature of x.

So, a body is wavTyn SuarpeTov (i. q. dvvarov TavTN dvarpeOjvar),
provided that, if in fact this ‘through and through’ division takes
place, nothing incompatible with the essential nature of ‘body’
results. But, as we shall see, the body’s dissolution into points
would result: i. e. it would follow that a body ‘consists of points’,
which zs incompatible with the essential nature of ‘body’. Hence
a body is not dvvardv ravry diorpeOjvac in the proper sense of
duvaror. ,

It must, however, be added that Aristotle here interprets the
‘thesis (that a body is zavrn duuperdvy) as meaning that a body
can be so divided through and through, that the results of the
dividing are simultaneous. It would not follow that a body
‘consists of points’, if the thesis meant only ‘it is always possible
to divide a given body anywhere, though not everywhere at once’,

78 COMMENTARY

The thesis thus interpreted is, in fact, maintained by Aristotle
himself.

Aristotle developed his conception of dvvayus and dvvarov in
the Mefaph. (\. c.) as the result of a controversy with the
Megarians: see, on the whole subject, Maier’s article in the
Archiv f. Geschichte d. Philosophie, xiii, pp. 30 ff.

162 19-21. odKodvy .. . yeyovds. ‘Hence the same principle will
apply, whenever a body is by nature divisible through and through
—whether by progressive bisection, or generally by any method
whatever: nothing impossible will have resulted, if it has actually
been divided .. .’

The construction is a little harsh, but not impossible. Aristotle
is urging that if a body is dvvardv rdvry dtarpeOnvor, whether the
Siaipeos is by bisection (kara 76 pécov, i.e. by progressive bisection
ad infinitum: cf. *18 kai «i pn dpa duppytac), or by any other
method (kat dAws d€), 2” all cases alike nothing édvvarov will result
if the body has actually been divided. Bekker and Prantl make
nonsense of the passage by placing a full stop after aratrus.

For this use of otxodv, see Bonitz, Jud. 540% 28-30, and cf.
below, 16° 10.

16* 22. Sunpynpéva (Starpe8)7. An alternative emendation would
be dunpynpeva (Sunpynpevor) 7.

16°25. jv... Stacperdv, ‘whereas ex hypothest the body was
divisible through and through’. Aristotle is reproducing the
original formulation of the thesis (16815): otherwise we should
have expected dinpnpyévov instead of dvaperov.

162 25-26. dd\d\a .. . 8 €orar. ‘But if it be admitted that
neither a body nor a magnitude will remain, and yet “ through and
through ” division is to take place...’

Ri pndev eora (sc. ourdv) cGpa pyde peyeBos resumes the result
of the preceding argument as an admission which the advocates
of the original thesis are forced to make. d:aipecis 8 eorar
reaffirms the original thesis in spite of this admission. If the
original thesis is to be maintained in spite of this admission, the
body, which is ravrn dcatperov, will have to consist of points or of
nothings, as Aristotle proceeds to state. i

16% 26-34. 7... péyeOos. The constituents of the body must
be either (i) points, or (ii) nothings. If (i) they are Aoznts, they
are without magnitude; and therefore the body, which they
constitute, can have no magnitude, i. e. cannot be zoadv (® 29-34).
If (ii) they are nothings, the body can come-to-be out of nothings,

A. 2. 316219 —) 2 "9

and can exist as a composite of nothings : i. e. the body is simply
an illusory appearance (® a8-a9).

The explanatory clause kal dpeyeOy é€ dv ovykerat has disturbed
the natural statement of the alternatives. Aristotle began with
the intention of writing ‘it will either consist of points or of —
nothings’. But he added to the first alternative the explanatory
clause ‘i.e. its constituents will be dueyé6y’ ; and then, treating
this clause as if it were the main statement of the first alternative,
stated the second alternative in a corresponding grammatical
form. Thus the effect is the same as if he had written 7 orvypai
éxovra. kal apeyeOn (ra) e€ dv ovyxerral, ) ovdey TavTaracw.

16° 29-34. dpotws . .. péyefos: this disposes of the first
alternative (see preceding note), The argument (# 30-34) is :—
(i) Before the division, when the points were in contact and
together, they did not increase the quantity of the whole (# g0-g1,
éwore...70 7av). We can see this (ii) from the fact that, when
the body was divided into two or more parts, the whole (i.e. the
sum of the now separated parts) was not a bit smaller or bigger
than it was before the division (® 31-33 diaipeBevros . . . zpdrepov).
Hence (iii) even if all the points (into which the body has been
dissolved by the ‘through and through’ division) be put together,
they will not make any magnitude.

16° 34-58. adda. . . ottypyv. We have seen that, if a body
has been divided through and through, we are left with points or .
nothings: i.e. the body has been dissolved into ‘constituents’
which never could constitute it. But it might be urged that,
though nothing is left when the ‘through and through’ division is
over, yet 22 the process of the dividing something evades the
division: and that this ‘something’ sufficed to constitute the
original body. It is suggested first (#34 — 2) that the ‘something’
which evades the division is itself a ‘body’, like sawdust: and
when that suggestion is disposed of, it is suggested ext (> 2-8)
that the original body was ‘formed’ or ‘qualified’ points, and
that the ‘form’ or the ‘quality’ goes out in the dividing. This
suggestion also is shown to be impossible.

16> 2. dmépxetar. . . Statperdv ; daépyera (and similarly afer,
b 3) iq. rHv diaipeow diadevyer, 16% 16.

6 airds Adyos: the same argument as above, * 24-25.

éxelvo ... Suaperov ; ‘For én what sense is that section divisible ?-
It must be divisible in some sense, since the body is zavry
Suacperov.

So COMMENTARY

EHJL omit ydp, but the asyndeton is rather harsh.

16> 4. ortypal... wafodca. The ‘points’ or ‘contacts’ stand
to the zaOos in the relation of matter to form. The péyeBos is
a réde év Td, Or Hdi tradi exovra (cf. Metaph. 1036% 23). The
suggestion, then, is that the division separates the points or
contacts (the matter) from their 7a6os (the form), and that in
the division an e?dds 7. xwpirrov 7) mafos goes out.

Before proceeding, it will be as well to explain certain technical
terms (viz. ébeéfs, datopevov, éxopevov, ovvexés), whose mean-
ing Aristotle assumes throughout this passage and in what
follows. They are defined in the Physics (226% 18—227>2:
cf. also 231° 18 ff., and de Lin. Jnsec. 97%*°17—972%6 with my
notes). |
. (i) The widest term is éegjs. It applies whenever there is
a series with a first member (an dpyxy) and an order of ‘ succession ’,
provided that there is nothing of the same kind (ovyyeves) as the
members of the series intervening between any two of them.
In every such series each succeeding member is consecutive
(€peéqs) to the preceding member. ‘Thus, e.g., a line (or lines)
may be consecutive to a line, a unit (or units) to a unit, a house
(or houses) to a house, provided that no other magnitude, no
other number, or no other building intervenes.

The members constituting the series may be selected on various
principles ; e.g. because they belong to the same species as the
first member (‘a row of houses’), because they have a determinate
spatial relation to it (‘a series of lines parallel to a given line’),
and so forth. And, in relation to the selected dpyy, the ‘suc-
cession’ may be /emporal (e.g. the 2nd of the month is con-
secutive to the 1st), or ‘/ogical’ (the number 2 is consecutive
to 1, for 1 is mpdrepov TO Adyw to 2), or Spatial (the second
house in the row is consecutive to the first), &c.

(ii) If, in a consecutive series, any member is /” contact with the
member to which it is consecutive, it is said to be ‘immediately
next’ (éydmevov) to its predecessor.

-Now, according to Aristotle’s definition of 76 dwrecOar (Phys.
226> 21-23, and cf. * 22> 29), only spatial guamda (lines, surfaces,
or solids) can strictly be 7 contact. Any two lines, surfaces, or
solids are in contact when their ‘extremes’ (i.e. their containing
points, lines, or surfaces) are ‘together’ (da), viz. are in one and
the same ‘immediately-continent’ place. The ‘ immediately-

continent’ place of anything (rozros idvos or zpdros) is that which .

ee ee ee

A. 2. 3165 4-6 81

contains that thing and nothing more (Phys. 209% 31-" 1).
Hence the term émmedtately-next (éxopuevov) applies only to a series
of consecutive spatial guwanta. In such a series any member
which is i” contact with the preceding member (to which it is
consecutive) is tmmediately-next to it. Thus, though the number 2
is consecutive to 1, 2 is not tmmediately-next to 1: for numbers
cannot be iz contact with one another. And though point may
be said, in a less strict sense of dwrreoOa, to be in contact with
point ; yet, since in a magnitude point is not consecutive to point,
point cannot be said to be zmmediately-next to point (cf. * 16> 6-8,
* 17% 2-17).

Lastly (iii) 7d ovvexés 1s a special case of éxduevov. If the
‘extremes’ of two guanta (one of which is immediately-next, to
the other), instead of being merely ‘together’ (dua), coalesce
and become one, the guanta are ‘held together’ or ‘continued’
(cvvéxeror) and are continuous or form a continuum (avvexés).

In order to prevent misunderstanding, it must be remembered
that Aristotle regards continuity as primarily spatial, i.e. as
characterizing a péyeJos. The ‘continuity’ of motion, or of
change generally, is derivative, dependent upon the continuity
of the moving or changing c@pa. And the ‘continuity’ of time
is dependent upon the ‘continuity’ of the xivnows which, gua
measured, is time. Similarly ‘succession’ (7d mpdrepoy kat
torepov), according to Aristotle, is primarily spatial, depending
upon position (r7 Oéoe). Cf. Phys. 219° 10 ff., 220> 24 ff. ; below,
* 37% 22-25.

We can now explain 164 a little further. The advocates of
the ‘through and through’ divisibility of a péyefos may “urge
(Aristotle suggests) that a péyefos is ‘points or contacts thus
qualified’: i.e. a continuous magnitude, they may say, results
from the coalescence of two points, which are dua, into one
point. Each couple of ‘coincident’ points is a ‘contact’ (a7) :
and a ‘contact’, or many ‘contacts’, whose ‘coincident’ points
fuse and become one, zs a cuvexés.

16> 5-6. ér... ottypat; Each of the ‘elements’ (Earth, Air,
Fire, Water) has its own proper place in the Cosmos and its own
natural movement towards its proper place: and all ‘ places’ are
filled by elementary or composite bodies (cf. Introd. § 10).
Since points are not bodies, they cannot have any ‘place’ and
they cannot have any natural movement. Yet, if they are not
‘in any place’, i.e. if they are nowhere, how can they be the

2254 G

— ~82- 7 COMMENTARY

constituents of a body? And if they have no movement, how
can they coalesce to form a cvvexés ?

16> 6-8. doy te... otrypnv. ‘Contact’ means, strictly speak-
ing, the ‘coincidence’ (i.e. ‘ togetherness in the same immediately-
continent place’) of the ‘extremes’ or ‘limits’ of two peyé6y
(*16>4). Hence it implies two dardweva whose ‘limits’ are
‘together’. But points are themselves ‘limits’, and nothing but
‘limits’: hence point cannot (strictly speaking) be 2” contact with
point. Two lines can be ix contact, i.e. their ‘limits’ (from which
they, as ‘the limited’, are distinguished) can be ‘together’. But
a point cannot be distinguished into a ‘limit’ and a ‘limited’.
If, therefore, we speak of a contact of points, we are using the
term in a different (and a looser) sense: it is a ‘contact’, into
which the whole of both dzrdpeva is absorbed (dAov dXov arrec Oat).
And it is clear that from such.‘ contacts’ no cvvexés could result (cf.
Phys. 231% 26-29, ® 2-6: de Lin. Insec. 971% 26 ff., with my notes).

16> 7-8. mapa... ottypyv. On the supposition that a magnitude
is ‘points or contacts thus qualified’, apy, diaipeors, and orvypy
are equivalent terms: see de Lin. Insec. 972% 28-30, with my note.

1659-14. é€m . .. taita; Prantl brackets this passage as
spurious. But, although it is difficult to see exactly how it
connects with what has gone before, it is undoubtedly genuine ;
and it contains a new and important objection (» 13-14) to the
view that a péyeOos is ‘ points or contacts thus qualified’.

If I divide a piece of wood into two, and then put the parts
together again, the result is a single piece of wood of the same
magnitude as before. The same principle applies, at whatever
point I divide the wood. Let us suppose, then, that I have
divided it at all points at once (i.e. through and through) and
put it together again. It is now a magnitude, and ome: and yet,
since it has been through and through divided, it is still potentially
through and through divided (> 11-12 wévry dpa dunpyrat dvvdper).
What distinguishes its present jofential ‘through and through
dividedness’ from the preceding actual ‘through and through
dividedness’ when it had vanished into points? If we say ‘the
distinction depends on the presence or absence of a zdos’, we
must explain how the wood can be dissolved into quality + points
(eis radra, 613) and how it can come-to-be out of quality +
points :—in other words, we must explain how zaOos and that
which it qualifies (viz. points) can be separated from one another
sO as to exist apart.

Shas I ele

A. 2. 316 6-25 83

1612. ti . . . Siaipeows ‘ What, then, is there in the wood
besides the division (i.e. besides the points : cf. * 16> 7-8)?’

16> 17-18. éoxerto.. . . érépois. airdv, i.e. the ddvvara resulting
from the postulate of Indivisibles.

ev érépous, Cf. Phys. 231% 21 ff., de Caelo 303° 3 ff. (cf. also de Lin.
Insec. 969» 29 ff.).

16> 18-19. dAAG... Nextéov. ‘But we must try to disentangle
these perplexities, and must therefore formulate the whole problem
over again.’

tadra, i.e. doth sets of difficulties which together constitute the
azopia: cf. * 16% 14—17%17. The argument which seems to force
us to accept Indivisibles is restated (» 19-34): the fallacy under-
lying it is exposed, and the true theory set forth, thus solving the
dopta (17® I-17).

16> 19-25. 16... onpetov. ‘On the one hand, then, it is in
no way paradoxical that every perceptible body should be in-
divisible as well as divisible at any and every point. For the
second predicate will attach to it potentially, but the first actually.
On the other hand, it would seem to be impossible for a body to
be, even potentially, divisible at all points simultaneously. For
if it were possible, then it might actually occur, with the result,
not that the body would simultaneously be actually doh (indivisible
and divided), but that it would be simultaneously divided at
any and every point.’

dvatperov (which Bekker, following EL, inserts after dvvape: in
b 21) is probably due to accidental reduplication of diarperdy in » 22 ¢
or it may have been a marginal note intended to explain 76 pév
yap... trdp§e (b 21).

duvvaduer (22) may have arisen by accidental reduplication
of duvave. in > 21. If we retain it, it must be taken closely with
elvaz. It is not required with dvauperov, since that means dvvarov
SvaipeOjvor. Aristotle may have been induced to qualify efva. with
Suvdper, owing to the antithesis between trapgea dvvaper and trapée
évreAexeta in © 21.

I suspect that the sentence ody dare . . . onpetov ( 23-25) was
originally a marginal note, intended (like duauperdv in 21) to
explain 76 pév yap... tadpée. This suspicion is confirmed by
the fact that F’ reads dunpnpevoy duvape xa’ in » 24-2 5. When
the marginal note got displaced and inserted in the text, duvape
became unintelligible. Accordingly it was dropped, F’ alone
retaining it. |

G 2

84 COMMENTARY

16> 28-34. adda... ouyxpioer. This reproduces the experiential
basis of the Atomists’ theory. A body cannot be divisible through
and through: for that would mean that it consists of points
or nothings. On the other hand, we see that a body ‘is in fact
divided into separable magnitudes which are smaller at each
division—into magnitudes which fall apart from one another
and are actually separated’ (cf. Phys. 231>4-6). We have
only to suppose this process of ‘ breaking-up’ carried a little
further, and we shall reach bodies too small to be visible (ddpara,
b 33: cf. 25230). These invisible, minute bodies (separated
from one another by ‘the void’, and indivisible because not
comprising any ‘void’ within themselves) are the Atoms of
Leukippos and Demokritos.

GANA pexpt Tov (P 32), sc. etn av H Opts.

16> 33-34. GdAdws . . . ouvykpioe. Assuming that yeveors dnd
Oopa occur, and assuming that yéveois is due to ovyxpiors and
pOopa to duaxpiois, we seem to be forced to admit that the ultimate
constituents of the perceptible bodies are ‘invisible atoms’. For
(a) an ‘association’ of points or nothings cannot produce a body,
nor can a body be ‘dissociated’ into them; i.e. ‘association’
and ‘dissociation’ imply a limit to the body’s divisibility: and
(b) unless the ‘associated’ and ‘dissociated’ atoms were invisible,
there would not be even an apparent emergence of what was not
already there, or an apparent vanishing of what was there. But
nobody would speak of yéveors and POopa unless there were, at
‘least in appearance, a ‘creation’ and an ‘annihilation’.

17° 1-2. mapadoytL{éuevos. The Atomists argue, according to
Aristotle, that there must be atoms ; because, if not, a body is
divisible through and through, and this leads to an absurdity. For,

‘What is ravry duaperov can be resolved into points or nothings :

‘A body (ex hyp.) is ravry Siaperov :

‘Therefore a body can be resolved into points or nothings’.

But this syllogism is a wapaAoyopos (faulty in form), for its
middle term (zdvry dvayperov) is ambiguous. The major premiss
is true, only if rdvry darperov means ‘ divisible everywhere simul-
taneously’. But the minor premiss is true, only if révry dtouperdov
means ‘divisible everywhere successively, i.e. anywhere you
please ’..

17* 2-17. éwei... €\attrovwy. A can only be immediately-next
(éxdpevov) to B, if A is (i) consecutive to (épeéjs) and (ii) in contact
with (amrépevov) B (cf. *16> 4).

A. 2. 316> 28—317%9 85

Now point cannot be consecutive to point; for, between any
two points, something cvyyevés (viz. a line) always intervenes (cf.
e.g. Phys. 231» 6-10). Nor can point be im contact with point,
except in the loose sense of ‘contact whole with whole’ (cf.
* 16>6-8). Hence point is not zmmediately-next to point in a
magnitude.

From this it follows that, though any given magnitude can be
divided ‘everywhere’ in one sense (viz. anywhere, at any point), —
it cannot be divided ‘everywhere’ in another sense (viz. a¢ all
points simultaneously). For though there is a point ‘ everywhere’
in the magnitude, in the sense that a point can be taken ‘any-
where’ within it, these points (i.e. ‘all’ the points of the magnitude)
are not tmmediately-next to one another : 1. e. they are not ‘ every-
where’ in the sense that af all places of the magnitude simul-
taneously there are points. If, e. g., the given magnitude has been
divided at its centre, it cannot also be divided at a point
immediately-next to its centre: for there is no such point. On
the other hand, the magnitude might have been divided at a
point zmmediately-next to its centre, stead of at its centre: for
a point might have been taken ¢here, instead of at the centre.

Hence every magnitude is ravry dvaperdv, and yet no magni-
tude can be zavrn dpa Siypynpévov. And it is possible to take
a point ‘everywhere ’—i.e. at any place, or successively at all
places—in a magnitude: but not to take points ‘ everywhere’ in
a magnitude, i. e. s¢multaneously at all places within it.

tovTo (17% 4), SC. TO wavrTy elvar dvatperov.

kal éryodv ... evar (®5), ‘that there is a point not only any-
where, but also everywhere, in the magnitude’.

17° 7-9. 168... mdvty. ‘But it is only 2% one sense that the
magnitude is divisible through and through, viz. in so far as
there is one point azywhere within it and all its points are
everywhere within it if you take, them singly one by one. But
there are not more points than one anywhere within it, for the
points are not consecutive: hence it is not simultaneously
divisible through and through.’

7o & (#7), sc. 70 Suauperov etvat.

dor od mdvry (99), sc. Siatperdv 2orar 7d péyeOos.

Grammatically it would be possible to interpret 7d & (#7) as
70 88 orvypyv eva, and dor od ravty (89) as dor ob mdvTy oTLyHI
Zorar: but this would not enable us to connect the passage with
the next sentence («i yap Kara pécov KTA.).

ee COMMENTARY

17* 10-12. ei .. . odvOeors. ‘ For if it were divisible through and
through, then, if it be divisible at its centre, it will be divisible
also at a point zmmediately-next to its centre. But it is not so
divisible: for position is not zmmedtately-next to position, nor
point to point—in other words, division is not zammediately-next to
division, nor composition to composition.’

In ®rr, EFHL®¢ read d:aiperov’ od ydp «tA. Philoponos
remarks that Aristotle meant to say rotdro 8 ddvvarov, and IT reads
‘non autem possibile’. J alone reads diaiperdv’ odyi d€* od yap
«tk. Mr. T. W. Allen pointed out to me that ovyt d€ (sc. ov
i 5é) might represent ov« gore 5é (Sc. Kar’ éxomevyy otvypiy Stouperor) :
and I have adopted this conjecture, though ddd’ ddvvarov (cf. T
and ®°) would be more in accordance with Aristotle’s usage.

17° II-12. onpetov ... ottypas. If any difference of meaning
between onpetov and orvypyy is here intended, onpetov is probably
employed as the wider term, to include an ‘instant’ (70 viv) as
well as a spatial point. Aristotle uses onpetov of a ‘point’ of time
(e.g. Phys. 262>2, 25; de Caelo 283% 11, 13), and the doctrine
that point is not consecutive to point is expressly applied to 76 viv
as well as to ortypn, e. g. Phys. 231 6-10.

17° 12. toUto.. . odv@eors. For the interpretation given wins
cf. *16b 7-8. Possibly, however, these words have got displaced,
and should be read after dudkpiors In ®@ 13.

17°16. cis pikpd kal éXdttw, ‘into small (i.e. relatively-small)
parts.’ ‘ Dissociation’ need not result in small constituents, but
it must result in constituents which are relatively-small, i.e.
smaller than that which is ‘ dissociated ’.

17* 17-31. &\N’ obx .. . gaow. Aristotle here lays down the
meaning which he is going to attach to yéveors, POopd, and éAXotwors
—i.e. their xominal definitions : cf. Introd. § 8 and * 142 6—17%31.

17° 18-19, tiv . . . dAAoiwow: the accusative. depends upon
dacwv. |
I7* 22-23. of 8é... Siapeper. of Sé, the philosophers whom we

are criticizing, i.e. primarily the Atomists.

TOLAUTHV, SC. THY év TO Guvexe peTaBdArnv, ‘the change which
takes place in what is continuous’; in contrast to the change by
which a thing is ‘dissociated’ into discrete parts or a discrete
plurality ‘ associated’ to form a thing.

To d€ duapéper, ‘ whereas in fact there is a difference’. For there
are two kinds of change, both of which may be called ‘ change in
what is continuous’. Of these, (i) change in the constitutive

AG 2. 3 7* 10-30 87

factors of the thing (a change of its ‘substance’) is yéveous or
f0opa : whilst (ii) a change in the thing’s properties, where the
substance of the thing is unaffected, is d\Aofwors.

17° 23-27. év yap... @ddolwots. ‘For in that which ‘aaah
the change there is a factor corresponding to the definition,
a formal factor, and there is a material factor. When, then,
the change is in these constitutive factors, there will be coming-
to-be or passing-away : but when it is in the thing’s qualities, i.e.
a change of the thing fer accidens, there will be Alteration.’

The phrase 76 pév.. . UAnv (#24) is hardly more than a peri-
phrasis for 7d ev Adyos (or «idos), 75 Se TA (cf. e. g. Metaph. 1033»
13, 1035*1). The eidos of a thing is strictly correlative to its
Adyos, for a thing’s ‘form’ is that of which the definition or
Jormula (d6yos) states the constitutive moments (cf. Introd. § 7).
The tzoxetwevov—that which underlies the ante a formed-
matter or embodied-form, i.e. a ovvOeros ovcia (cf. Introd.
§ 5). A change ‘in’ the form and matter—a change of the
avvOeros ovoia as a Whole—is yéveots or POopa. But a change ‘
the thing’s properties, which leaves it, gua ¢his composite of form
and matter, unchanged, is d\Aoéwous : and this change is predicable
of the thing only xara cvpBeBynxds (® 26), not Kab? atro. For,
strictly-speaking, it is not the thing, gua thing, which changes:
the thing changes only in respect to some one of the properties
which ‘ go along with’ it, which may or may not attach to it.

The full significance of Aristotle’s present account of the
distinction between yéveois and dAXoiwors will emerge gradually
in the course of Chapters 3 and 4. |

17° 27-28. Svaxpivdpeva ... ylveror. As the illustration shows,
this is a brachylogy for ev@Oapta kat adpOapra (SvcpOapra) yiverat.
‘ Association ’ and ‘dissociation’ are not shed and ope, but
‘dissociation’ may facilitate or hasten, and ‘association’ may
retard, yéveous and fOopd.

17° 28-29. édv . . . Bpaddtepov. As we shall learn presently
(cf. * 184 23-25), the yeveors of one thing is always eo ipso the
p0opa of another. Here, therefore, 0arrov anp caters necessarily
implies that Oarrov Udwp pbeipera. -

éav d¢ ovyxpiO7, i.e. if small drops of water have first been
‘ associated ’ together (so as to form a big sheet of water).

17° 30. év tois dotepov. Cf. 28%23-22, where it becomes
clearer how ‘association’ and ‘dissociation’ affect a thing’s
susceptibility to POopd.

88 COMMENTARY

17° 3I. otav . . . daow, i.e. (as Philoponos rightly explains)
yéveots Cannot be identified with ovyxpiors é& dropwv.

A. 3

17° 32—19) 5. Atwpiopévwy . . . eipyjo8w. Having defined the
meaning of the terms yéveors and @Oopa (having given their
‘nominal definitions’), Aristotle proceeds to prove dre éort, 1. €.
that corresponding processes. do in fact occur in Nature (cf. * 148
6—17* 31). According to their ‘nominal definitions ’, yéveous and
Oopa must be distinguished from dAAoiwors, cvykpiors, and diudKprots.
The terms mean processes in which a composite of form and
matter changes as a whole, so that a new composite (a new
‘substance’) emerges, or so that a given composite vanishes
(cl * 17% 23-27).

The terms are commonly applied, in ee sense defined, to
many processes in Nature :—e.g. to the reciprocal ‘transforma-
tions’ of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, and to the coming-to-be of
plants (cf. 1911). Aristotle shows (a) that such an interpretation
of these and similar processes is possible, since it does not
necessarily conflict with the admitted postulates that ‘ Nothing
can come-to-be out of Nothing’ and that ‘No property can exist
per se, apart from a substance’; and (b) that such an inter-
pretation follows logically from his own theory of the physical
Cosmos. For the conceptions of zpary tAn and of ‘ the efficient
cause of motion’, which are established in the Physics, are
adequate to account for the actual occurrence of yéveows and
pOopa (in the sense defined), and indeed for their occurrence with
unbroken continuity in Nature.

17* 32: mp@tov. The second main topic of investigation is
formulated at 17> 34-35.

17" 32-34. €or. 1. . . kai ti. Since yéveous is a rd6os, its
‘being’ is its ‘inhering in’ a substance (cf. Introd. p. xxvi,).
Strictly, therefore, the question «i éoru yéveois should be formulated
as Aristotle here formulates it :—‘ Is there anything which comes-
to-be in the unqualified sense? Is there anything of which =
yéveots can bé predicated Fe

The ‘proper’ sense (xvpiws, #33) is the ‘unqualified’ sense
(a7AGs). If there is substantial change, i. e. if a new ‘substance’
emerges or an existing ‘substance’ vanishes, we say, without
qualification, yiyveras Or POeiperau. If, on the other hand, a thing
remains substantially unaltered, but changes its quality, its size,

A. 2. 317% 31 — 3. 317513 89

or its position, we add a qualification to the verb. We say ‘it
comes-to-be-z/7’, ‘ comes-to-be-w/ite’, ‘ comes-to-be-dig’, &c. This
is tis yéveous Or tis POopd. Since, when that is so, we also qualify
the thing (e. g. ‘ the d/ack thing comes-to-be white’, ‘ the sma// thing
comes-to-be big’), the processes are sometimes called yéveois tuvos
Or POopd twos. Or, as Aristotle expresses it, in the qualified
processes ‘a thing always comes-to-be-something out of being-
something’ (aet 8’ é« twos kai Ti, * 34).

Thus the antithesis between yéveois (or POopd) adn and tis
is between substantial change and change of dos, i. e. change
in Categories other than that of Substance. We shall see pre-
sently that Aristotle also uses the antithesis in a different sense :
for (i) amongst substantial changes, some are regarded as dzdai
in contrast to others, and (ii) amongst changes of +a@y, some are
regarded as relatively dmdat. Cf. * 184 27—19% 22, 192 14-17.

Zabarella rightly compares ost. Anal. 89> 36—9075. For
just as yiyveoOa dwAGs means ‘to come-to-be’, whilst yiyverGar
with a qualification means ‘to come-to-be-so-and-so’; similarly
eivat dA@s means ‘to be’ (‘to exist’), whilst efva. with a quali-
fication functions as the copula and means ‘to be-so-and-so’.
Hence Aristotle (l.c.) distinguishes the question «i éorw dhs
(e.g. ‘Does the moon exist? /s there a moon?’) from the
question «i éor tu (e.g. ‘Is the moon eclipsed?’). The former
(existential) question is an inquiry into the being of the thing as
a troxeiuevov—a ‘substance’, or whole of form and matter:
the latter (which Aristotle also calls the question «i éotw émi™
P€pous, Or an inquiry into 76 drv) is an inquiry into a part of the
thing’s being, its being in a certain respect, i.e. its possession of
a property.

17> 1-1g. ei... yivdpevov. An argument to show that unqualified
yéveois is impossible, because it would involve ether that some-
thing can come-to-be out of sheer nothing, ov that ré6y can exist
apart from substances: and both of these alternatives are
admittedly absurd.

The argument runs thus :—If a thing is to ‘ come-to-be-healthy’,
it must start from a state in which it is ill, i.e. ‘is-not-healthy’.
Similarly, if it is to ‘come-to-be’, it must start from ‘not-being’.
As qualified yéveois presupposes gualified not-being, so unqualified
yéveois presupposes ungualified not-being. Now ‘ unqualified
not-being’ means eéther (i) the absence of all ‘ being’ belonging
to the Category in question, ov (ii) the absence of all ‘ being’ in any

yo | COMMENTARY

and every sense of the term. Whichever interpretation we adopt,
Besos yéveots’ (we shall be forced to admit) presupposes
a ‘not-being’ which is sheer nothing. This follows at once if
we adopt the second interpretation. But it follows no less if we
adopt the first. For the Category here in question is the
Category of Substance. Hence ‘ unqualified yéveous’ presupposes
‘what is not in any sense a substance’. But what is not a
substance cannot be qualified or quantified or in any way
determined : for all +é6y are za0y of a substance, and their
‘being’ is to characterize a substance. Hence ‘ what is not in any
sense a substance’ is not in any sense at all: i.e. is sheer nothing.
172. dwhOs av... Svtos. amAds grammatically qualifies the
whole clause: but the point is that such salad presupposes a pu
ov which is éAds py ov.
tu is of course the subject of the clause.
17> 3. Ste Grdpxet tot Td ph Sv. Probably this is intended as
a reminiscence of Plato, Sophis¢. 237 ff. It is self-contradictory -
to say that unqualified not-being ‘belongs to’ (is a predicate
of) certain subjects: for a subject, if it is to be conceived or
mentioned at all, must ‘be’ in some sense. ri means 6yv Tu.
17° 5-7. 1d... mweptéxov. The two senses of 70 dads py) ov
correspond to two senses of rd dads Ov. For 7d dads ov may
mean either (i) that which ‘is’ in the most general and indeterminate
sense—a sense which includes any and all of the Categories,
without specifying which: or (ii) that which ‘is’ in the sense of
“one of the Categories—a sense which is determined e.g. as
‘ substantial’ or as ‘ quantitative’ being, without further specifica-
tion of the ¢yge of substantial or quantitative being affirmed.
Thus you would affirm 67 ésrw dwAds of a man in sense (i) if
you said simply ‘he is’; and in sense (ii) if you said ‘he is
a substance’. Similarly, if e. g. ‘white’ came-to-be out of what
was not a guality at all, or ‘man’ out of what was in no sense
a substance, there would be yéveois out of 7d dxdGs pi dy in the
sense specified by Aristotle first (17> 6): whilst, if ‘white’ or
‘man’ came-to-be out of what could not be said to ‘be’ zm any
sense whatever, there would be yéveois out of 7d darAGs px dv In
the second sense specified by Aristotle (17 7).
17>6. 15 mpdtov... dvtos. On Aristotle’s theory of the
Categories, see Apelt, Essay III.
‘That which is firs¢ in each several mode of predicating
“being”? is (as Philoponos rightly explains) 7d yevixdrarov, or

A. 3. 317 2-14 gt

70 dvwrdtw yévos. The ‘mode of predicating’ in question (i.e.
the Category) is named after this ‘ first (most general) predication
of “being” ’ within it, and is indeed generally identified with it.
Thus, in the first Category, 76 rpérov would be ovcia in general,
in the second zo.dv in general, in the third zoodv in general, and so
forth. The first Category zs otoia: for, ‘in this mode of pre-
dicating “ being ”’, the év which is predicated is always substantial
being—viz. either ovoia in general or some specified type of ota.

17> 7-13. ei. . - yevdpevor. ‘If then unqualified not-being means
the negation of “being” in the sense of the primary term of
the Category in question, we shall have, in ungualified coming-
to-be, a coming-to-be of a substance out of not-substance. ... If,
on the other hand, unqualified not-being means ‘ what is a in
any ese at all”, it will be a universal negation of all forms of
being...

The cae alternatives correspond to the alternative senses of

amhas (cf. > 5s—7), and both lead to the conclusion that dA7 yéveots

involves that ‘ something can come-to-be out of sheer nothing’:
this absurd consequence follows at once on the second alternative,
and could only be avoided on the first alternative by the (equally -
absurd) supposition that ‘properties can exist apart from
substances’ (cf. * 17> 1-13).

With ei piv obv 76 parov (sc. pi) dv) in > 7, and with «i dé 76 py
dv ddAws in > rx, we must, I think, supply onpatver 70 darAGs pH ov.
In > r1, Bekker and Prantl place a comma after d¢, which makes
nonsense of the passage.

In the frst sense of 7d éaAGs py dv, ‘white’.e. g. would come-
to-be out of 76 drs pi) dv if it came-to-be out of pa ovr,
tpixnxu if it came-to-be out of pi woody, and so forth. Since,
however, dj yéveots is the coming-to-be of a substance, the
Category of Substance is dere in question: and the dmAds pi) ov
presupposed by dA yéveors is x2) ovcia (° 8).

17> 10. 16 mod. ‘This is the reading of EF‘HL. J has roros
(cf. T), and F writes réao. above the line. Grammatically of
course zrowv, roodv and zod are the subjects to tmdpxe..

17> 11, Sdws, i. G. KaOddov (” 7).

17513. év dAdos. Phys. A. 6-9.

17> 14. Sidprorat tots Mdyors. Ayo probably means ‘ definitions ’.
Aristotle is referring to his definitions of the various senses in which
a thing comes-to-be out of 75 i) dv and out of 7d dv: and again to
his definitions of the parts which orépyois and td respectively

92 COMMENTARY

play as the presuppositions of yéveous (cf. Phys., e.g. 191" 9-10,
b 13-16, 192% 31-32, &c.).

17> 14-18. cuvtépws...dudotépws. This ‘concise restatement’
of the doctrine of the Physics leaves it as yet uncertain what
exactly the presupposed basis of substantial yéveors is, and indeed
whether there can be yéveois of a substance at all—as Aristotle
himself points out immediately (17 18 ff.).

All that we have learnt so far is :—yéveous presupposes
something which can be truly called both é6v and py dv (> 17-18
Neydpevov dudotépws: so Zabarella and Pacius interpret these
words, undoubtedly correctly). For yéveous presupposes that
which is-potentially but is-not-actually. Hence, in one sense,
things come-to-be out of ja dv adds : sii yet, in another sense,
they always come-to-be out of dv.

This description of the presupposed oop of yeveous (as ‘ that
which is-potentially but is-not-actually ’) would apply ezther to
the proximate vA of 76 yryvouevor (i.e. a formed-matter, a concrete
substance) or to zpwrn bAn, the toxe/pevov conceived in abstrac-
tion from all the forms which it acquires in its transformations.
Both interpretations are so far possible: and both interpretations
are required in supplementation of one another, if the description
is to be an adequate summary of the doctrine in the Physics.

Consider, e. g., the yéveous of Air. This presupposes as its
basis a proximate vA which is itself a concrete substance, viz.
Water. ‘ Air comes-to-be out of Water’ (i) in so far as the
substratum, which 7s-actually Water, ts-potentially Air: i.e. in so
far as the conditions for the development of Air are present in
this actual formation of the swdstratum: and (ii) in so far as the
substratum, which is Water, 7s-not-actually Air. For, though
capable of recéiving the form of Air, it is actually ‘ without’ it, or
‘deprived of’ it. Thus (i) Air comes-to-be ‘out of’ something
which ¢s-potentially Air, and which may therefore be called dv. And
yet (ii) Air also comes-to-be ‘ out of’ the orépnors of Air; or rather
(since a orépyots is ka abrd pi dv, cf. Phys. 191» 13-16) ‘ out of’
something which (in so far as it 7s-not-actually Air) may be called
pn ov. The proximate vAy, in short, is the basis presupposed by -
yéveois both (i) in respect to its positive ‘ potential-being ’ (which
becomes actual as the result of the yéveows), and (ii) in respect to
its ‘actual not-being’, i.e. in respect to its ‘want’ of a form
which it is capable of acquiring—a ‘want’ which is removed as
the result of the yéveous.

A. 3. 317° 14-28 93

At the same time, the yéveous of Air (if we carry our analysis
further back) presupposes as its basis zpary vAy. For, in the
yeveors Of Air, the substratum, which was informed as Water, casts
off that form and takes on a new one—1. e. is ‘ transformed’. The
substratum, indeed, never exists except gua determined by some
form. But we can im thought abstract it from all its forms, and
conceive it as matter undetermined, though - determinable.
Aristotle’s description would apply to this logical abstraction—
mpwTn vAn—as well as to the proximate matter. For zpary vAn
is ‘that which ¢s-not-actually (Water or Air or any concrete
substance), but is-pofentially (Water and Air and every concrete
substance)’. Cf. * 18% 23-25.

17> 15. ék ph Svtos Gmhds. The basis of yéveous only zs with
a qualification, i.e. it 7s-Suvdue. 7d darAGs put) dv means ‘ that which
is, without qualification, devoid of being’: but 76 px dv adds
means ‘that which is devoid of being, unless you qualify the term
“ being ”’ (cf. * 198 29 —P 4).

17> 18-19. 6... éwavarodioréov. The problem, which Aristotle
is about to discuss, emerges (on re-examipation of the question as
to the presuppositions of dA yéveows) precisely because of the
vagueness of the ‘concise restatement’ in » 14-18.

How are we to interpret ‘that which ¢s-potentially, but 7s-not-
actually’? (i) If as the proximate bX», then it looks as if yéveots is
after all not the coming-to-be of a substance: for the proximate
‘Ay is itself already formed-matter, i.e. a substance. (ii) If, on the
other hand, as zpwry tAy, we are confronted with serious difficulties.

éravarodwcréov apparently occurs only here. But dvarodiLew
means ‘to recall for further examination’: cf. Herodot. v. 92, § 6,
with Stein’s note.

17>19-20. mds... GAdws: this whole clause is the appositional
antecedent of 6 (» 18).

17> 23. «i... yiverat, ‘for if a substantial thing comes-to-
be...’ The manuscripts and Bekker read «i ydép 7 yiverau: but
the meaning is determined by l. 21 (dp’.. rodde), and I suspect
that Aristotle wrote «i yap rd Tu yiverau. |

17> 27-28. 13... 83 Kal dv is explanatory of rdde, and pd ov
is explanatory of py réde. The basis of yéveows, gua only
potentially ‘this’ (or ‘ substance’), only potentially ‘is’: and, gua
not actually ‘this’, it has no actual ‘being’. All further
determinations of ‘being ’—quality, quantity, position, &c.—are
dependent upon sudstantial ‘ being’.

94 COMMENTARY

17029. 1d ph oftws dv. The reading of FHJ (cf. T), 76 otrw
(or obrws) pi dv, is an attempt at correction. Bonitz (/nd. 539%
36-37) treats 7d px ovrws dv as a mere idiomatic transposition of
the negative, and as equivalent to 76 ovrws py ov. But the words
mean, I think, ‘a deizg which is no determined-being’ (cf. also
Baumker, p. 234,).

Aristotle issrepeating in different words what he had already
said above (> 23-25). The completely indeterminate, though
determinable, basis of substantial yéveous, which is really only
isolable by definition, threatens to become a vreadlly-extstent
antecedent of yéveo.s. According to his own theory, the ultimate
logical presupposition of yéveows is a substratum conceived in
abstraction from all forms, i.e. zpérn tAy. But azpwry vAn does
not exist. It is not a real antecedent of any yévecis, in the way
in which the proximate vAy (e.g. Water) is the real antecedent
of a given yéveous (e.g. of Air): cf. * 184 23-25, * 292 24 — > 3.

17> 31-32. ei... Omdpger, ‘but if it is not a this-ssomewhat or
a substance...’ In Aristotle’s usage 168e (cf. e.g. 17 9, 21, 27;
Metaph. 1038 24) means ‘a this’, i.e. ‘this or that or any design-
able’: to8e te (cf. e. g. 18> 1, 15, 32; 19% 12; Metaph. 1038» 25)
means ‘a designable somewhat ’—1. e. any ‘at with a what, pro-
vided the what belongs to the first Category. (For the substance
of this note I am indebted to my friend, Professor J. A. Smith, who
has convinced me that Burnet is mistaken in what he says about
rode te in his Ethics, p. 66,: cf. Classical Review, vol. 35, p. 19).

17> 33. kaOdmep eimopev: 17> ro—rr.

17> 34-35. Kat... pépos. The solution of this second main
problem (cf. * 172 32) carries with it the solution of the fivst: cf.
* 18% ro-13._ The meaning of deé is explained more fully below,
cf. * 37> 29383. The ‘fact’, for which Aristotle is to seek the
cause, is an unbroken succession of yevéoes and POopai, and
generally of all forms of change, in the sublunary sphere. Under
yeveots Aristotle here includes (i) sudstantial coming-to-be and
passing-away (dAq yéveois and dadH POopd), and (ii) the three
forms of process in which a perceptible substance changes its
quality, quantity, or place (dédAoiwors, avénows kai pOiors, dopa).
These last three forms of process are here called yéveous 4 xara.
pépos, because in them the thing comes-to-be not as a whole (or
as regards its ‘substance’), but in respect to a part of its ‘ being’
(or as regards its ovpPeByxdra): cf. * 17% 32-34, and 17>3-s.
Aristotle’s usual practice is to draw a sharp distinction between the

A. 3. 317° 29—3189 13 95

three €idy Kurjorews (dAXoiwors, abfyors kal POiors, popa) and yéveois
and $6opa, and to use the term peraBoAy to cover a// forms of
change (i.e. yéveors and #Oopa as well as the three species of xivynais):
cf. * 19> 6—20 7. But this practice is by no means invariable.

The distinction between dA yéveots and yéveois 7) Kata pépos
(35) has nothing to do with the distinction within substantial
changes between dwrdh yéveors and tis yéveors (cf. * 17% 32-34)
which is drawn for the first time at 18® 27 ff.

1841-2. ovens... UAns. airias, Sc. Tod yeveow del evar. The
explanation of the perpetuity of yéveo1s depends primarily on the
material and efficient causes: but Aristotle’s account of the
efficient cause (B. ro) includes a consideration of the End
towards which its activity is directed, i.e. of the final cause of
yéveots, viz. the eternal conservation of the species or ‘ form’ of the
yevvyra. (cf. 36> 25—37* 1).

18* 3-4. eipyntar... Adyors. Phys. O. 3 ff., especially 258” ro ff.

184 4-5. To pev... det. The firstis the zpdrov xwoi, i. e. God.
The second is 76 rpGrov bro rovrov Kiwovpevov (Phys. 259» 33), i. €.
the rp&ros otpavds, the outermost shell of the Cosmos—the sphere
in which the fixed stars are set—which is eternally and uniformly
revolving (cf. Introd. § 10). Philoponos calls it 76 xuxAodopyruxov
copa: cf. also * 36%14- 10, * 364 14-18, * 37% 30-31.

18? 5-6. toUrwy ... épyov. ‘The other, or prior, philosophy ’
is rpotn pirocodia or Yeoroyixy: cf. Introd. §§ 3, 4. | .

The reading and interpretation of this passage are confirmed
by de Caelo 298% 19-20. The variants in E' and L are to be
rejected as blunders.

182 7, Uorepov: B,. 10.

1828. ti. . . éotw, ‘which amongst the so-called “specific ”
or “concrete” causes exhibits this character’, i.e. radAa xwel
dud. TO ovvexds kweicOa. Perhaps we ought to read airiwy instead
of airvov. For ra caf exarra Aeyopeva aitia, aS Opposed to causes
in the universal sense, cf. Phys. 195% 27 ff. on the rpdzou rév airiwv.

182 9. thy... tWenévnv. For this use of eldos, cf. Bonitz, Zxd.
218>13 ff. and Metaph. 984° 17 airiav ... ryv ev tAys cider
Aeyouévnv. Cause is not a yévos, of which the four types of cause
are eidy (species), as Philoponos and Zabarella remind us.

18* 10-13. dpa... yevéoews. When we have learnt the
material cause, we shall understand doth why yéveois and Oopa
never fail to occur in Nature, azd what is that ‘potential
substance’ which unqualified yéveous and Oopa presuppose.

96 COMMENTARY

The xai after A€yew (* 12) is explanatory : ‘it will simultaneously
become clear what account we ought to give of that which
perplexed us just now, ie. of unqualified passing-away and
coming-to-be ’.

18° 13. ouveipew: cf. * 168.

18% 20-21. toito . . . Staipeowv. Aristotle had shown in the
Physics (Y. 5 ff.) that there is no actual Infinite. ‘ Infinite’
always a predicate (e. g. of body, of number, of time). It expresses
the possibility e.g. of dividing a given finite body, or of adding to
a given finite number, ad infinitum. But this possibility can
never be completely realized: there will never actually be an
infinite plurality of parts or of units. :

duvaper 0 ext tHv diaipeow, SC. éotiv adrepov. Cf. Physics, l.c.,
206%9—33. Aristotle there recognizes a ‘ potential infinite’ i
two complementary senses, in both of which the same principle is
involved ; viz. an Tr elpov Kara duaiperw (or aatpecres) and an
ameipov kata mpocbeow. You can go on dividing a given finite
magnitude ad infinitum, since there are no indivisible magnitudes.
And if, e.g., having divided a given magnitude by progressive
bisections, you take the successive ‘halves’, you get an endlessly
diminishing series of fractions (4, 4, 4...) which will never
exhaust the original. magnitude. Nor, conversely, can you
reconstruct the whole, if you start with one of these fractions and
add to it the succeeding terms of the series. For 1 = 4+4++..
ad infinitum; 1.e. such a‘series could only be summed in an

‘infinite’ time, viz. never.

182 21-23. dot ... dpduev. Assuming that the material of
yeveors, although actually finite, is infinite duvaper ért tiv Scaipeow,
the succession of yevéoess might continue for ever, provided that
what came-to-be dwindled progressively in the same ratio in which
the material was diminishing. The race of mankind, e. g., would
have to dwindle so that the sizes of the succeeding generations of
men would correspond to an infinitely diminishing series of
fractions. Unfortunately, however, this ingenious suggestion for
solving the difficulty is negatived by the facts.

Translate: ‘so that we should have to suppose that there is
only one kind of coming-to-be in the world :—viz. one which
never fails, because it is such that on each successive occasion
what comes-to-be is always smaller than before ’.

18* 23-25. dp . . . petaBodyv; This sentence contains
Aristotle’s solution of the difficulty as to how perpetual yéveais is

A, 3. 3184 13-27 97

possible, and also (implicitly) his answer to the former question,
viz. in what sense arA7 yéveors presupposes ‘ potential substance ’.
The difficulty as to the perpetuity of yeveous depended on the
assumption that 7d dOe.popevov passes-away into 76 py ov, and that 76
py ov is nothing (cf.# 14-15). But Aristotle maintains that what
occurs is always a two-sided process, one concrete substance being
converted into another (e.g. Water into Air) so that the passing-
away of the one zs the coming-to-be of the other, or vice versa. This
two-sided process is, in ultimate analysis, the transformation of
a permanent substratum (xpaétn tdn) whereby it drops one form
and takes on another. Since the substratum never exists as dare
matter, but always is formed, there always is a positive actual
substance. Hence opa is not annihilation. There is no
passing-away into nothing and therefore no gradual exhaustion
of 76 ov. Matter is eternal, but it exists always, and only, as
formed-matter: and the succession of yevéces is perpetual, for
matter is always being transformed, though never annihilated.
The two-sided process, which is the yéveo.s of one concrete
substance and the #0opa of another, is thus (in respect to rpary
vAn) the substitution of one positive form for another positive
form. But each of these positive ‘poles’ of the process has also
a negative side: and, strictly speaking, it is the negative side
which constitutes the /erminus a quo of yéveois and the ¢erminus
ad quem of pOopd. If e.g. Air comes-to-be out of Water, what is
relevant in the antecedent is not the positive form which the
substratum in fact possesses (not its being Wafer), but its orépyous
of Air—i.e. the fact that the sudstratum is ‘without’, and yet is
by nature capable of acquiring, the form of Air. Air, in fact,
comes-to-be-out-of Water-gua-not-Air: and this same change is
Oopa, in so far as in it Water passes-away-into Azr-gua-not- Water.

The antecedent of the yéveors must be a positive concrete

substance, but need not be ¢Azs one (viz. Water): and the d@opa
must terminate in some positive concrete substance, but not
necessarily in Air. Hence the yéveous of Air is fer se é« tips

_ otepnoews and only per accidens ‘ out of’ Water.

Thus the ‘ potential substance’ presupposed by yéveors is some

_ indeterminate one out of a number of alternative actual formations

of zpwrn tAyn. Cf. also. * 29% 24 —» 3.

18" 25-27. wepi...aitiav. ‘The cause just suggested ’ (ravryv)
is the ‘material cause’ in the sense of zpwrn dAy: cf. the
recapitulation (192 18-22) and the preceding note. We should

2254 H

o8- - COMMENTARY

perhaps have expected rod yéveow efvau (ovvexas) in ® 26 (cf. 19% 19).
But Aristotle claims to have stated the material cause which is
adequate (ixavyy, *27) to account for the ‘being’ (as well as the
perpetuity) of yéveors and @0opa. And in fact, since substantial
yéveors and #Oopdé are not creation and annihilation, but trans-
formation, given porn ¢dn—a transformable tzroxe(wevov, which
is able to accept every form and always exists under some form—
these processes cam take place and caz perpetually continue: and
they can do so under no other condition. Hence zpary Ay is
the conditio sine gua non of their ‘ being’ and their perpetuity : i.e.
it is their adequate ‘ material cause’.

dpotws (#26) must be taken closely with zepi éxacrov tév dvTwv
(cf. * 142, 35% 26). Aristotle professes, in accordance with his
original programme, to have stated the material cause of yéveots
and @op¢ ‘in their general character, as they occur in all existing
things alike’. In the next sentence, ra pév... 7a 8 (#28) are
contrasted with épuoiws ... dvrwv and wacw (#27). For the next
problem arises precisely because linguistic usage distinguishes
between the yéveo.s of some things and that of others, although
(as Aristotle has maintained) these processes exhibit the same
general character uniformly in all things.

184 2719922. 8a ti... yéveous. If Aristotle’s theory of sub-
stantial yéveous is true, we ought never to speak of dd} yéveots oF
of dd} Popa, but always and uniformly of a two-sided process
which is both the yéveous of something and ¢o so also the pOopda
of something else. But linguistic usage appears to conflict with
the theory. For (i) of changes within the Category of Substance
some are called yéveo.s without qualification, or ¢6opa without
qualification, whilst others are qualified. The birth of a man,
e.g., 1s called yéveows dds, and not POopa at all: his death is
called ¢Oopa drdés, and not yéveois at all. Or, if we speak of
fOopa when a man is born, we qualify it as ‘the passing-away
of the seed’: and if we speak of yéveous when a man dies, we
qualify it as ‘the coming-to-be of a corpse’. And (ii), using
yeveots and POopd in the broad sense which includes changes in
the Categories other than Substance, some things (e. g. ‘the growing
thing’) are said yiverOa: érAds, whilst others (e.g. ‘the learning
thing’) are said to come-to-be only with a qualification (e. g. ‘to
come-to-be-learned ’),

In the present passage Aristotle endeavours to account for this
apparent conflict of linguistic usage with his theory. He begins

A. 3. 3189 27—P12 99

by formulating both applications of the distinction of appellation—
the first at 18 31-33, and the second at 18% 33-35. Next (188 35—
19* 3) he suggests three different grounds on which the distinction
of appellation is based within substantial changes: and of these
three, the second alone is endorsed by him as sound. ‘Then
(19% 3-11) he restates the second use of the distinction (viz. z¢s
application to all changes), and marks it off carefully from the firs¢
which he has already discussed (cf. 198 5-8 viv pev... peraBad-
Aovow). He shows that this second application of the distinction
is based upon the difference of the Categories, so that swéstantial
change is called unqualified, and change of accidents is called
qualified, yéveois or POopa (19% 11-14). But he adds a note to
explain that nevertheless, zz al/ the Categories, some changes are
called yevéoes (only) and others ¢Oopai (only) by an analogous
application of the same principle which justified the distinction
between unqualified and qualified yéveois and pOopa within sub-
stantial changes alone (19*14-17). Finally (19%17-22) he re-
capitulates the purport of the whole passage from 17 32. ic

18% 29. mddwv, ‘once more’: for it was from this same pecu-
liarity of linguistic usage that Aristotle started (17 32 ff.) to
establish the being of drAH yéveots.

184 31-33. Aéyouev... POopd. The first peculiarity of linguistic
usage: cf. *18%27—19%22. When e.g. a man dies, we say
simply POeiperar, instead of POeiperar (uev) Todi, (yiverar dé TodL) :
and we call the change $6opa simply, instead of POopa (ueév tovdi,
yeveois dé TovddL).

188 33-35. root. . . ot. Zhe second peculiarity of linguistic
usage: cf. * 184 27—19% 22, and 19#8-11. On Aristotle’s theory,
the coming-to-be of a plant is the passing-away of a seed: and the
~ coming-to-be of a scholar is the passing-away of a dunce. But,
in fact, we call ¢he first change ‘coming-to-be’ simply,:and she
second ‘ coming-to-be-learned ’.

18° 35 —bi2. KxaOdmep . .. pi dv. All three defences of the
distinction of appellation (as applied to changes within the
Category of Substance) are grounded on a difference—real or
supposed—in the ‘ proximate matter’ of the change :—viz. in the
thy @& Fs Kat eis Hv peraBadrra (cf. 18> 33—19%3), or in ‘that
into which the changing thing changes’ (18 2-3).

The first defence is grounded on the supposed fact, that the

proximate matter’ of all substantial changes is in the end a
modification of one of two fundamental materials, viz. a material
H 2

100 COMMENTARY

which has ‘positive being’ (76 ov) and a material which has
‘negative being’ (76 px ov). It is suggested, then, that a sub-
stantial change into rd év is called dwAq yéveors (or POopa twos),
whilst a substantial change into 7d x ov is called drAH POopa (or
tis yéveots).

18° 35-1. kafdwep... 7a 8 ot. The distinction (as is clear
from the context) is not between Substance and the remaining
Categories, but between terms signifying ‘positive reals’ and
terms with a ‘negative’ -signification. As here employed, the
distinction is Pythagorean (see next note). But (cf. * 18> 14-18)
Aristotle himself adopts a modified form of it to justify the
distinction of appellation: and perhaps. this is why he says
todAaxis dvopiLowev. Apparently xafazep is answered by da rodro.
The construction is irregular, to say the least, and I have not’
been able to find any parallel.

18> 6-7. domwep . .. yyv. According to Burnet’s punctuation,
which I have adopted as on the whole most probable, Parmenides
‘says that the things into which change takes place are two’ (Aéyer
dvo, SC. Ta eis & peraBadrdrer Td peraBaddrov): ‘and he asserts that
these two, viz. what is and what is not, are Fire and Earth’.

Aristotle ascribes this view to Parmenides in many other places:
also: cf. Metaph. 986° 27 ff., and see below, * 30 13-19, * 35> 16-
17, *36%1-12. But it is put forward by Parmenides himself in
the second part of his poem (i. e. in ‘the Way of Opinion’) as the |
prevalent, but erroneous, theory: cf. Parmenides, fr. 8, ll. 51 ff.
(Diels, pp. 121-2). Burnet (§§ go, 91) is almost certainly right (i)
in maintaining that ‘the Way of Opinion’ is ‘a sketch of contem-
porary Pythagorean cosmology’, and (ii) in suggesting that Aristotle
never intends to ascribe the theory to Parmenides himself, but
merely to cite ‘Parmenides’, i.e. the poem of Parmenides, as
a work in which the theory is expounded. i

18> 8-g. tov... Smoxeiwevov: ‘for we are trying to discover
not what undergoes these changes, but what is their characteristic
manner.’

18> 9-10. 16 ph dv dads: cf. * 17d 15...

18> 11. Biprotat, sc. 7a cis & peraBdAde 7d peraBddXov, or rd
brokeipeva.

18> 14-18. Gddov .. . Siadopais. This is the second defence of
the distinction of appellation, and it is grounded on a difference
in the degree of reality possessed by the ‘proximate matter’ of
the various substantial changes. The yéveois or the Oopd of

A. 3. 318% 35 —> 27 ‘ 101

a relatively more real substance are yeveors or Popa aaAGs: whilst
the yéveows Or Popa of a relatively less real substance are yéveois
tus (or twos), Or POopa tis (or Twos).

This defence of the distinction of appellation is accepted by
Aristotle himself as sound. According to his own theory, the
things in the universe are graded in their reality so as to form
a kind of hierarchy. Their degree of reality is determined by
their approximation to the absolutely real, i.e. to Substance
which is évépyeva dvev Suvdpews or pure Form (cf. Introd. §§ 3 and
4). Every composite substance, or formed-matter, is the vAn or
dvvapis Of a substance higher in the scale of being, and the
actualization (or more perfect development) of a less-real substance.
Thus, e.g., Earth, Air, Fire, and Water are the vAy or divas of
the duovoyepy, which are themselves further developed and formed
to. constitute the ‘organs’ of the living thing’s body: and the
latter is the dvvapuis, of which yyy or ‘life’ is the évepyea. And
Wvyx7 itself is manifested in three main grades of reality, of which
the first is related to the second, and the second to the third, as
dvvapus to evépyera.

We gather from Aristotle’s statements that the predicates under
any Category fall into two contrasted Columns or ovorouxia
(cf. * 1914-15). One Column consists of positive determinations
(18° 16 Karnyopia tis Kat elSos: for this use of xarmyopia, cf. e.g.
Pr. Anal. 52° 15), the other of prvivative terms (17 orépyors).

In the Category of Substance, with which we are here concerned,
Fire, e.g., and Earth are differentiations of the same material,
according as it is informed by ‘the Hot’ or ‘the Cold’. But
Fire 1s more real (more ‘substantial’) than Earth, because the
duadopa or ‘constitutive quality’ (cf. e.g. * 1528-11, * 29> 7—
30° 29, * 29 24-26) of Fire—viz. the Hot—is a ‘positive character’
or a ‘form’, whilst the ‘constitutive quality’ of Earth belongs to
the privative Column. ‘Cold’, in fact, indicates the orépyous of
heat, i. e. its absence from a material by nature fitted to receive it.

18> 18-27. Soxet . . . dAnOés. This is the third (and most
commonly accepted) defence of the distinction of appellation.
Most people identify the real with the ‘perceptible’, and the
‘imperceptible’ with the unreal. Hence they call those changes,
in which a fercepitb/e material emerges or disappears, yéveors and
$Gopa without qualification: but those in which an ¢mperceptible
something takes the place of, or gives place to, a perceptible
substance, qualified yéveois or POopa.

102 COMMENTARY

181g. Biapepew, sc. 7d drdds yiverOa Kai POeiperbar Tod py
amrAas.

18> 21-27. 73 yap . . . ddnOés. Aristotle explains why ‘most
people identify the real with the perceptible, and the imperceptible
with the unreal’. They treat aicOyous as equivalent to émurnpn,
and then proceed on the principle (which Aristotle himself accepts)
that ‘what is knowable is real, and what is unknowable is not
real’. Hence, just as they identify their own ‘being’ or ‘life’
with actual perceiving or with the power to perceive (rightly
enough: cf. Zth. Nic. 1170%13-— 19), so they suppose that the
‘being’ of the things—the objects of their perception—is ‘to be
perceived or perceivable’. From the true principle that the esse*
of animals and men is fercipere, they draw the false corollary that
the esse of things is percipi.

18> 27-33. oupBaive. ... ys. Aristotle contrasts the chird
defence with the second. The latter is in accordance with his
own view, and is based on the true conception of degrees of
reality and of the significance of drAy yeveois and arAn pOopa
(cf. b 28, 32 kar’ dAjnGeav): the former is the popular view, and
is based on an erroneous conception of what is more or less real
and of the significance of arAy yéveors and drAqn POopa (cf. » 27
kata. ddgav, > 29 Kara THY aicOnow).

According to the common opinion, e.g., Earth is more real
than Wind or Air, since it is more perceptible: but, in truth, Wind
and Air are more rea/ than Earth, since they have a more ‘ positive
being’ than it. Hence, e. g., the transformation of Air into Earth
is really #Aopa, but is commonly and erroneously called yeveors.

In } 30, dwAds must be taken with POe/pecOar.

18> 33-35. tod... attiov. ‘We have now explained why there
is ungualified coming-to-be (though it is a passing-away-of-some-
thing), and why there is uxgualified passing-away (though it is
a coming-to-be-of-something).’

Bonitz’s excision of ryv before dxAjv in 34 is wrong. |

19* 3-14. tod... yiveoOar. Having explained ¢he first apparent
anomaly of linguistic usage, Aristotle now turns to the second
(cf. * 188 27—19% 22, * 188 33-35),

The distinction of appellation here depends on the Category
to which the change (the thing gua changing) belongs. Swdstantial
change is—and is rightly called—yéveors or Popa dads: but
change in any other Category is—and is rightly called —yéveous or
pbopa tis.

a

A. 3. 318 19—3198 29 103

tod dé (* 3) answers rod pév ovy (18> 33). Aristotle was. going
to say 70 airiv éorw dtu xrA.: but the parenthesis (@ 5-11) has
disturbed the construction, and the sentence finishes irregularly
(211 ratra . ... karyyopias: dé is resumptive).

19°12. tad pev... woody. ‘For some of the things which are
said to come-to-be signify a ¢hi's-somewhat, others a such, and
others a so-much,’

Thus by 7d gvduevov we mean a certain kind of thing or
‘substance’, the growing substance or plant. But by 76 pavOavov
we mean a ‘substance’ gwa in a certain state or condition, and by
TO tTpirnxv a ‘substance’ gua of a certain length. When, there-
fore, 7d pavOavov (or To tpirnxv) is that which yivera, the process
is really a change of state or quality (or a change of length or
quantity). The ‘substance’ does not, gua substance, enter into
the process, but only in respect to its quality or quantity. But
when 75 dvdpevor is that which yiverar, the change is the emergence
of a new ‘substance’ (the transformation of the seed into the
plant). The ‘substance’ gua substance enters into the change,
and the change is daAj yéveots.

19" 14-17. ob... dvemoripov: on the significance of these lines,
see Alexander (quoted by Philoponos) and * 18% 27—19? 22.

19* 14-15. kata... cvotoixia. Cf. * 1814-18. On ovororyia,
see Bonitz, Jud. s.v., and Comment. in Arist. Metaph., pp. 81

and 497.
n €tépa ovororxia means ‘the one Column of the two’: the

~ context determines which of the two Columns is intended. Thus,

in Phys. 201% 25 and Metaph. 100427 % érépa ovorotxia is the
Column of privative terms: but in A/e/aph. 1072%31 and here
the phrase clearly means the Column of positives. Hence F’s
reading (érépa tod Kpeirtovos ovarouxia) is unnecessary, though it
gives the right sense.

19718. kai ddws... adtais, ‘ both in general’ (19 11-14), ‘and
in the special case when the changing things are substances and
nothing else’ (18 35— 19° 3). |

19?22-29. &dd\a ... dvros. The perpetuity of yeveois, as
Aristotle has explained, is really a perpetual transformation, the
possibility of which depends upon the nature of zpwry vAn.

He now shows that the argument formulated above (18* 13-23),
to prove that perpetual yéveous is impossible, involves a fallacy
and does not constitute a genuine difficulty at all. For it depended
upon the assumption that 75 -pOeipdjevoy passes-away into 76 yu7 ov,

104 COMMENTARY

and that rd yeyvdpevov comes-to-be out of ‘what is’. But (i) if
7d py ov means ‘ nothing’, it is false that POopa is a passing into
To py ov: whilst (ii) if 7d pa ov means ‘the imperceptible’, then,
though it is true that POopa is a passing into 76 pi) dv, it is equally
true that yéveous is ‘out of’ 76 un ov.

The whole appearance of a difficulty rests on a confusion
between two senses of 76 pi ov. In the popular sense 76 py ov
is simply 76 évaioOyrov: and the material ‘out of’ which a thing
comes-to-be, and ‘into which’ it passes-away, may be ‘im-
perceptible’ and therefore pi dv—and yet it is not nothing, but
OV TL.

19* 25-26. eit’... dvtos. A thing yiverar ex py dvtos (i.e.
dvavoOyrov), whether ‘that out of which it comes-to-be’ is, or
is not, something :—i.e. the imperceptibility of the material is
irrelevant to the question of its ‘ being’ or ‘ not-being’.

19° 28 and 29. Tod pi dvTos, sc. Tod dvaicOyrov.

19229—4. adda... adtd. The ‘matter’ of substantial
change is py ov in the popular sense of ‘imperceptible’. But,
according to Aristotle’s own theory, it is also py dv drAGs: for it
is duvdper tis ovoia, evredexeia. Se ov, i.e. it zs not, unless you
qualify ‘is’ and say it ‘is-potentially’ (cf. * 17> 14-18, * 17> 15),
This ‘ matter’ is zpoéry vAn, and the substantial changes primarily
in question are the reciprocal transformations of 7a d7AG odpara,
viz. Earth, Air, Fire, and Water (cf. Introd. § ro). Aristotle
speaks of them here as ra évavria (® 30). They are, as we shall
learn (cf. B. 1-3, with the notes), the first concrete substances
resulting from the information of zpwry tAy by the coupled ‘ con-
trary qualities’ (Cold-Dry, Hot-Moist, Hot—Dry, Cold—Moist).
Two questions concerning this ‘ matter’ are here discussed.

First Question (* 29-33) :—In the transformation of one ele-
mentary body into another, are we to identify one of the two
with 76 py ov dds, i.e. with zpdry tAn? The answer is in the
negative. The ‘matter’ in this sense is the matter equally of
both. They are formations of it; in each formation one of two
contrasted qualities determines it so that it is something dv, an
actual substance.

Second Question (* 33 —» 4):—Is the matter of each of the ele-
mentary bodies different? The answer is that it is im one sense
the same for them all, but zz another sense different in each of
them.

19* 30-31. otov : . . kodpov dv. Earth is contrasted with Fire as

A. 3. 319% 25 — 4. 320°7 105

the heavy with the light (cf. Introd. § 10): but (cf. 29 20-24) this
Contrariety plays no part in the transformation of the ‘simple
bodies’. It is a pity that Aristotle did not here illustrate from
the Contrarieties of Hot—Cold and Dry—Moist, on which the trans-
formation depends. Perhaps the reason is that Fire, though it is
hot—dry, is primarily hot: and Earth, though it is dry-cold, is
primarily dry (cf. 31%3-6). Hence Earth and Fire are not
obviously évayria to one another in respect to these Contrarieties.

19* 31-38. 1... @aattTws; ‘Or, on the contrary, does “ what
is” include Earth as well as Fire, whereas “ what is not” is
matter—the matter of Earth and Fire alike?’

19* 33-1. kai... évavtiwv. ‘And again, is the matter of each
different? Or is it the same, since otherwise they would not
come-to-be reciprocally out of one another, i.e. contraries out of
contraries ?’

193-4. 6... 78 atté. ‘For that which underlies them,
whatever its nature may be gua underlying them, is the same: but
its actual being is not the same.’

The matter of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, conceived simply as
that which undergoes transformation (i.e. zpwry vAn), is ‘the
same’. But it exists only in its various informations: and the
informed-matter, which is e.g. Air, is different from the informed-
matter which is Water.

The familiar Aristotelian formula éoru pév 76 adrd, 70 8 elvat ov TO
avré is used to express that A and B are ‘ materially’ (potentially,
or abstractly considefed) identical, but ‘formally’ (actually, or
concretely considered) different: cf. e.g. * 22% 25-26.

A. 4

19> 6—20° 7, wept ...tpémov. In this chapter the distinction
between dAAoiwois and yeveois cai POopd (formulated above,
17° 20-27) is restated a little more precisely: and dAAoiwors is
marked off from avéyois xai Oio1s and from ¢opd, which
together with it constitute the three «iy xwyjcews in contrast to
‘substantial change’ (cf. * 17> 34-35).

The account of dAXotwors in this chapter is, however, still too
wide, and it has to be corrected and supplemented by the Physics
and by subsequent statements in the present work.

The doctrine of the Physics (224% 21—226" 17) is as follows.
Change (yeraBoAyn) is esther (a) from a troxeipevoyv to a py
broxeipevov, Or conversely from a py troxeipevov tO a ioxeipevov.

106 COMMENTARY

The first of these changes is #@opa and the second yéveo.s: and
their ‘poles’ (viz. droxe/wevov and py troxeipevov) are contradictorily
opposed to one another. Orv (b) change is from a troxeipevov
in one state to that toxeiuevov in a contrary state. All change
of this kind is xivyous, and it is subdivided into three species.
For the ‘poles’ of the xivnou may be (i) contrary ‘states’
in the Category of Quantity; i.e. the Substance may change
in size, and the xivyots is then Growth or Diminution: or (ii)
contrary ‘states’ in the Category of Place; i.e. the Substance
may “change its position, and the xévyows is then Motion
(popa): or (ili) contrary ‘states’ in the Category of Quality ;
i.e. the Substance may change its ray (its perceptible qualities),
and the xivyow is then Alteration (dAXolwors). The ‘poles’,
between which every xivnows takes place, are ‘ contraries’:
but Aristotle includes under this head ra peragév, because they
function, in relation to one another or in relation to either
extreme (or ‘contrary’ proper), as contraries. Thus, e.g., an
dAXoiwo1s may be the passage from hot to cold, from white to
black, from sweet to bitter, &c.: these qualities are évavria to one
another and constitute évavruscers. But an ddAdAoiwors may also
be from hot to warm or from warm to cold, from white to grey
or to any other intermediate shade of colour, &c. :—i.e. between
intermediates on the scales of temperature, colour, taste, &c.

19> 8-10. émeid}. . . roUTwv. Cf. *17%23-27. Change in the
ma@y (provided certain conditions are fulfilled, which Aristotle
specifies immediately) is Alteration. But it is not here explained
what waOy are the ‘poles’ of déAXotwors, and we have to supple-
ment Aristotle’s account from other passages.

Aristotle here (e.g. 19 33) and elsewhere describes dAXoiwots
as Kivyno.s Kata TO mov. Now in the Categories (8> 25—10* 26)
four main types of zodrys are distinguished, viz. (i) és Kal
didBeors, (ii) Suvapers Kai advvapion pvowkal, (iii) mabytiKal wovdryTes
kai 7ay, and (iv) cxjpa Kat popdy. ‘The examples of dAAoiwors
given just below (19>12-14) are (a) ‘change from illness to
health’ and vice versa, i.e. change of ééts or diabeors (Categ.8> 35 ff.),
and (b) ‘change from spherical to angular’ and vice versa, i.e.

change of oyjpa or poppy (Categ. 10%11-16). Nevertheless

Aristotle expressly denies (cf. Phys. 245>3 ff.) that change of
figure or shape, and change of é&s (i.e. acquisition or loss
of a é£is) are dAAowces. He insists (cf. e.g. Phys., 2nd version,
244°27-%25; Metaph. 1022%15-18) that the term éddXoiwors

os

A. 4. 319> 8-21 107

properly applies only to change of those qualities which are the
objects of the five special senses, i. e. the qualities which constitute
the ‘contrarieties’ of Touch, Vision, Hearing, Taste, and Smell
(cf. also * 318 8-10). Such qualities are classed in the Categories
(9° 28 ff.) as maOyrixat roiryres kal 7a0y, because all of them
(with the exception of black, white, and the colours, which are
called ra@yrixal rovrnres for another reason) ‘ produce a 7a6os in
our senses’,

I9>1O-12. dddolwors . . . petagd. Change in the za6y is
dAXolwors, provided (a) that the Substance, which is changing its
wdOn, is perceptible and persists unaltered through the change, and
(b) that the ‘contrary’ or ‘intermediate’ a6y in question (the
‘poles’ of the change) are predicable directly of the persisting
perceptible Substance as its own (P11 év rots éavrod rabeow).

The first proviso is necessary, because even in yéveots and pOopa
some ‘roxeipevov (viz. mpoéty vAn) persists through the change.
But in ddAotwors the persistent toxe/uevov must be ‘ perceptible’,
1. €. a cvvGerds ovcia (cf. Introd. p. xxxili,).

The second proviso (I owe the following interpretation to
Zabarella) is also necessary to distinguish é\Aolwors from yéveois
and #0opa. Thus, e.g., in the transformation of Air into Water
(which is a yéveous and @Oopa) the Hot—Moist is transformed into
the Moist-Cold. The passage is a change from the rd6os Hot to
the zaOos Cold: but it is not ddAoiwors, because there is no
persistent perceptible tmoxe/uevoy of which hot and cold are
directly predicable. There is, indeed, a persistent perceptible
troxeiwevov: for both Air and Water are cdma diadavés. But
hot and cold are not properties directly predicable of ‘trans-
parent’ or ‘transparent body’: it does not possess them as ‘its
own’ za6y. Air, which is transparent, is also hot: and Water,
which is transparent, is also cold. But hot and transparent (or
again, cold and transparent) are way coexisting in the same
subject ; just as e.g. Aevkds and povoixds coexist in Sokrates,
without being directly and properly predicable one of the other
(cf, also * 19> 26-27).

19> 12-14. ofov...@v. Though these examples are not instances
of édXofwors strictly-speaking (cf. * 19 8-ro), they illustrate the
persisting identity of the tzoxecuevov in ddAoiwors. On xadxds, se
* 28> 12-13.

19> 14-21. Stay... dvaicOytov. dAov (» 14), as Zabarella points
out, does not mean that, in yeveois or POopa, the whole substance —

108 COMMENTARY

changes: for apwry vAn persists unchanged. The. substance
changes as a whole, i.e. as this specific information of matter.
The change affects the combination of form and matter, which
makes the thing what it specifically is,

ws trokeysevov (> 15), i.e. something perceptible may persist,
but not a something, of which the new form is predicable in the
sl in which a zaos is predicable of its Substance: cf. * 19> r0-

* rgb 21- 24.

Boas mavros (% 16,17) must not be interpreted merely in
a quantitative sense. Aristotle’s point is that the seed or air as
a whole (in its ‘substance’, its specific character) has been trans-
formed.

non (17), i.e. a change of this kind is no longer merely
ddAoiwors : we are already in presence of yéveous and dOopa.

19> 16. otov.. . mdons. It was objected, Zabarella says, that
‘the seed comes-to-be out of the blood, not the blood out of the
seed’. He suggests that Aristotle is referring to the common
(though erroneous) belief ‘semen in utero transmutari in san-
guinem, 1. e. in embryonem qui sanguineus esse videtur’.

19> 18-21. paddtota... dvaic®ytov. Since the popular identifica-
tion of yéveors and pOopa with the change from ‘imperceptible’
to ‘perceptible’ and wice versa has already been repudiated
(cf. 18> 18-33), we must interpret Aristotle’s words here as mean-
ing that such changes are the most obvious and _generally-
recognized instances of yéveous and d6opa.

19 21-24. év...dddotwors. ‘ But if, in such cases, any property
belonging to a “contrariety ” persists in the thing that has come-
to-be, the same as it was in the thing which has passed-away—if,
e.g., when water comes-to-be out of air, both are transparent or
cold—the second thing, into which the first changes, must not be
a property of this persistent identical something. Otherwise .
the change will be Alteration.’

The point of this passage is to enforce and explain the qualifica-
tion as irokapstrow (br 5) i in the definition of yéveows : in a change,
which is. yéveous, nothing perceptible can persist as the subject of
which the new form is predicable. Otherwise the change would
be édAolwors: for we should have a persistent perceptible substance
changing in ‘its own’ 2é6n (cf. * 19> 10-12).

In > 23-24 Odrepov cis 5 peraBddAdAe is the subject, and zd6os
the predicate. The antecedent of rovrov (23) is the wdOos
evavtiwoews Of » 21, 7

A. 4. 319> 16-27 109

In » 23 there is no reason to alter the manuscripts’ reading
Wwuxpa. Aristotle is not saying that water and air are in fact ‘cold’,
but only quoting a common view in illustration. Air, according to
Aristotle, is Hot—Moist (cf. e. g. 30% 4): but Philoponos (p. 224,
ll. 13-16) tells us that it was thought to be Cold—Moist.

19> 25-31. otov...totaita. I follow Philoponos in transposing
viv... taopevovros, Which the manuscripts read after @Oopa in 1. 30.

Translate :—‘ Suppose, e.g., that the musical man passed-away
and an unmusical man came-to-be, and that ¢he man persists as
something identical. Now, if ‘musicalness and unmusicalness ”
had not been a property essentially inhering in man, these changes
would have been a coming-to-be of unmusicalness and a passing-
away of musicalness : but in fact ‘‘ musicalness and unmusicalness ”
are a property of the persistent identity, viz. man. (Hence, as
regards man, these changes are “ modifications ”; though, as regards
musical man and unmusical man, they are a passing-away and
a coming-to-be.) Consequently such changes are Alteration.’

Aristotle’s doctrine is :—(i) If ‘ musicalness and unmusicalness ’
were not a property of man, the change in which ‘a musical man
becomes unmusical’ would be a $6opa of musicalness and a yéveots
of wnmusicalness. But (ii) since ‘ musicalness and unmusicalness’
are a property of man, the change is in fact an Alteration of man
from a state of musicalness to a state of unmusicalness. At the
same time, (iii) the change is a @Oopa of musical man and a yéveors
of unmusical man,

In > 29 ray apparently means éAXowoes—a sense of the term
expressly recognized in Jefaph. 102218. This interpretation,
though difficult, is helped by the antithesis, dvO@puzrov peév . . . raOn,
avOparov S€ povaorkod . . . yéveos Kal POopa. |

19> 26-27. ei... dpoucia. The singular (za6os) is used, because
the whole évavriwois is predicable of Man, as ‘odd-or-even’ is
predicable of Number and ‘ straight-or-curved’ of Line. ‘ Musical-
or-unmusical’ is a disjunctive proprium of Man, and is a xa atrd
aa0os of Man in that sense (cf. Introd. § 8).

But dAAofwors is not confined to change in za6y which are
propria, and ‘ musical-or-unmusical’ is a xa@ atrd raGos of Man in
a wider sense also.

Man can ‘alter’ from musical.to unmusical, because Man is
the ‘owner’ of this ra6os—the substratum, in which it inheres,
and not merely a subject of which it can grammatically be
predicated. On the other hand, 7d Aevxdy could not ‘alter’ from

110 COMMENTARY

musical to unmusical, because ‘musical or unmusical’ is a ra6os
of 7d Aevkdv Only cara cupB_eByxds, Not xa aird. It is indeed
grammatically possible to say 76 Aevkdv éot povorkdy, but the state-
ment only means that an unexpressed substratum (e. g. Sokrates),
© cvpBEeByxev evar AevKG, is also musical. Cf. 21> 3-4, * 19 10-12,
Post. Anal, 83% 1-21. ?

19° 3I—20% 2. drav .. . p0opd. A summary statement of the
distinction of the three «ty xujoews (a) from one another, and
(b) from substantial change.

kata... movdv ( 33), i.e. maOos is to be interpreted as raOyrixy
moorys : Cf. * 19> 8-10.

maOos ... ddAws (* I), 1. €. taBos is to be interpreted in the widest
sense, so as to include all forms of ‘ Accident’.

20° 2-5. got... . twwv. Matter in the primary and strict sense
is identical with the substratum of substantial change (dAy yevvyri)
kal @OapTy). But the other forms of change also presuppose
a substratum which is-potentially, but is-not-actually, that which
results from the change. Hence’we must recognize a vAn wobev
mot (or vAyn tomixyn), a vAn Of avEnors Kal POios, and a vAn of
GAXotwos. Cf, Introd. p. xxxiv, Metaph. 1042% 32-7.

20° 5-7. wept... tpdmov. The first part of this epilogue refers
back to 15% 26-27.

After yevécews (#5) Bekker adds xai pOopas, which he wrongly
attributes to E. The addition is not wanted: cf. 19> 6.

A. 5

20° 8. mepi... eimetv. Aourdv: the reference is to the plan of
the work, cf. 142 1-6, 15% 26-28. 7

The processes hitherto considered (yéveois and POopd, édXoiwors)
occur in all sublunary natural bodies. But growth and diminution,
as here defined (cf. * 20> 34—721® 2g), are the two complementary
forms of a process which is confined to the éuvxa. We should
therefore expect to find them discussed in Aristotle’s treatises on
living things. And he does in fact treat (a) of food, and the
bodily organs involved in assimilation, nutrition, and growth in
the de Part. Anim., (b) of the organs of reproduction in the de
Gen. Anim., and (c) of the soul (as the efficient cause of nutrition,
growth, and reproduction) in the de Anima. Moreover, there are
grounds for thinking that he wrote—or at least planned—a special
treatise epi tpopis or wept avénoews Kal tpopys: see Bonitz, /nd.
104 16-28. Nevertheless it is natural enough that the present

A. 4. 319% 31 — 5. 320% 10 111

work should include a treatise on avgyots cat Oiors. For (i) the
four kinds of change are distinguished m the Physics, and dopa is
discussed there and in the de Cae/o. And since Aristotle has just
discussed yéveois and ddXoiwors, the investigation of growth and
diminution —the remaining kind of change—is appropriate here.
Moreover (ii) avéjous (as we shall discover) is most intimately
connected with yéveors and dAAoiwors, and cannot be explained
without them. Hence it is convenient to treat of the general
character of av€no.s in close association with the treatment of
yeveors and dAAoiwors.

The passage in the de Anima (B. 4, especially 416% 19 —» 31)
supplements Aristotle’s present account. We learn from it that
the primary or basal soul (7 apaéry yyy, i.e. the soul whose
functions distinctively characterize the lowest grade of éuyvya, viz.
the plants) is the ‘efficient cause’ of all those vital acts which
operate with food. For (i), as converting food into the substance
of the tissues of the €uyvxov, this soul is Operrixy, i.e. originates
the processes of nutrition ; (ii), as employing the assimilated food
to increase the living body up to the size which it possesses in
maturity, it is avéyrixy, i.e. Originates and controls the process
of growth ; and (iii), as winning from the food that secretion (viz.
the seed) from which a new specimen of the living body can
develop, it is yevyyrixy, i.e. originates and controls the repro-
ductive process. Since the aim and end of this soul is to
reproduce the living body of which it is the ‘form’ (76 yevvjoa
otov adrd), and since it is best to call things after their ‘end’, the
basal soul may be called yevvytixy ofov aird. It is the ‘repro-
ductive’ soul par excellence, since its other functions are subservient
and instrumental to reproduction.

Aristotle’s terminology in the de Anima should also be noted
in connexion with the present passage. The soul is 76 tpépov—
that which nourishes: the living body gwa living (76 éuvxov
7 éuyvxov) is 76 Tpepspevov—that which is nourished: the food is
that © zpépera, the ‘stimulus’ (cf. * 21> 5-6), i.e. that which
stimulates the Operrixy Sivapis to exercise its power: and the
natural heat of the living body (rd Oepyov: cf.** 29> 24-26) is
that. 6 tpéfera, i.e. that which the soul employs as the instru-
ment of nutrition, to digest and assimilate the food.

" 20° Q-I0. kai mas . . . POivdvtTwv, i.e. we have to explain the
general character of the processes of growth and diminution
wherever they occur: cf. * 14% 2, * 184 25-27.

112 COMMENTARY

20° 10 —22* 33. oxetrréov .. . pévet. The chapter discusses two
topics (20%8-10), viz. (i) how growth is distinguished from
coming-to-be and~-from alteration, and (ii) how growth takes
place. It may be divided into two parts. The first part (204 ro—
b 34) contains a preliminary and somewhat confused treatment
of both topics. Thus, the difference of avéynows from yéveous and
dAXotwors is considered, but not adequately stated (20% 10-27) ;
and there is an obscure and unsatisfactory discussion whether
(and, if so, in what sense) the matter, out of which things grow,
is potentially péyeBos (* 20% 27 —» 34). The second part (20> 34—
228 33) distinguishes growth from yéveows and dAAoiwors by a
precise definition of the term: and elucidates the way in which
growth takes, place, by an account of the nature of the growing
thing, of the part played by food in growth and the relation of
nutrition to growth. Cf. also * 21> ro-16.

20°12. St, SC. éoriv 7 pds GAAyAG Svadhopa dru KTA., ‘Do they
differ from one another, because .. .’

20°13. otov, videlicer. Cf. e.g. 21935, 26% 27.

20°15. dupdtepa, i.e. the last two forms of change, avéyovs
and dAXoiwers. |

20° 16. tav cipnpévev. 7a eipypéva are péeyefos and dos.

20% 16-25. 4... 8ivovros. Growth and diminution are xecessarily
accompanied respectively by the expansion and contraction of the
growing and the diminishing thing in all three dimensions of space. —
This phenomenon may accompany yéveois and dAAoiwors, but it
need not do so. From this peculiar necessary concomitant
Aristotle infers that the change, which is growth (or diminution),
must be distinguished ‘in manner’ from the changes which are -
yévecis and ddXoiwois: but we are not here told what this
‘distinctive manner’ is. |

20° 19-25. dddov ... p0ivovros. The change of place, which
necessarily accompanies growth and diminution, (a) is not
a movement of translation. For the growing or diminishing
thing as a whole retains its position, although its parts change
their places as it expands or contracts: whereas the moving body,
in a movement of translation, changes its position as a whole.
Nor (b) is it a movement of rotation, like that of a revolving sphere.
For the sphere as a whole continues to occupy an equal space,
within which its parts change their places: but the parts of the
growing thing expand, and those of the diminishing thing contract.

Aristotle here (# 20-21) compares the expansion of the growing

A. 5. 320% 10-29 IT3

thing to that of a metal when beaten. Even this comparison,

however, is inaccurate (as Philoponos points out) because the

growing thing expands in all three dimensions of space at once.
tovtov (#21), SC. Tod avgavopevov.

In the Physics (211% 12-17, 2135) dopa is quoted as one type
of kivnow 4 Kara Térov, and avéyots cat dOiors as the other.

20°27-—534. wepi... atgnors. It has been suggested that the
sphere in which growth operates (its epi 6) is péyeOos, i.e. that
growth is a change from ‘ potential’ to ‘actual’ péyeOos (20% 12-16).
Starting from this suggestion, Aristotle discusses in what sense the
terminus a quo of growth is duvdper péyefos. He is thus inquiring
‘What is the matter out of which things grow?’ And this inquiry
is at the same time a preliminary investigation of the problem,
‘ How does growth take place?’ (cf. * 20% ro—224 33).

But the discussion is obscure in many of its details. This
obscurity is largely due to the fact that Aristotle has not yet
pointed out that there is a twofold matter of growth :—viz. (i) the
materia in gua, i.@. Td avgavopevov, the growing thing itself, and
(ii) the materia ex gua, i.e. 7d & ad€dvera, the food (cf. * 205 34—
21%29). Hence ‘the matter of growth’, of which he here speaks,
includes doth ‘the growing thing’ and ‘the food’: and the
emphasis falls sometimes on one, and sometimes on the other, of
these two aspects of ‘the matter ’.

The general conclusion is that the zepi 6 of growth is péyeos,
in the sense that growth is a change of, and within, actual
peyefos. Thus ‘the growing thing’ must be an actual body which
already possesses some actual magnitude (cf. e. g. 20 31-33): and
the same is true, as we learn later, of ‘the food’. Nevertheless
the matter of growth is also in a certain sense (cf. * 20% 29, * 20>
12-14) only potentially a body and a magnitude, which it will
become actually. This is clearly explained in respect to ‘the
food’ (cf. 21> 35—-22® 33): but it is also true of ‘the growing
thing’, as we can infer from 20> 12-25.

20% 29. wotépws btodntréov. That the zepi 6 of avéyors kal Picts
is peéyeOos, is generally believed: but a special interpretation of
the relation of a change to its zepi 6 has been suggested (208 12-16),
according to which growth would be ‘a process from what is
potentially, to what is actually, a magnitude’. Now this description
is ambiguous, and the ambiguity lies in the phrase é« duvape
peyéOovs. Aristotle expresses only one of its two possible meanings
here: viz. that growth is a. process, in which c@pa kai péyeBos

2254 I

_

I14_ COMMENTARY

result from a matter actually incorporeal and devoid of magnitude,
though potentially magnitude and body. And the main object
of the ensuing discussion is to negative this description of
growth.

According to the other possible meaning of é« duvdwe peyéovs
(which is not here directly stated, though it is implied below: see
* 20b 12-14), the matter of growth would be actually corporeal
and actually possessed of magnitude, though only jotentially
‘corporeal and possessed of magnitude’ zm ¢he same sense in
which the result of growth ts actually so. The main result of the
later discussion (from 20> 34 onwards) is to explain and justify
this conception of the matter of growth.

20% 29-31. mwotepov ... péye90s; Growth, as we shall learn
later, presupposes nutrition, i.e. the transformation of food into
(e.g.) flesh, or the yéveous of a cima. Now, since yéveois is
transformation, nutrition—gwa the yéveois of a coua—presupposes
an already formed matter (i.e. an actual oda), and not an
incorporeal matter.

Hence the view here suggested—that in growth odpa kai
péyeOos come-to-be out of a matter which is actually incorporeal
and sizeless—is clearly false, at least in so far as ‘the matter’
means or includes ¢he food (cf. * 20% 27 — » 34), which the phraseo-
logy implies.

20% 31-34. kat todrou.. . dudotépws; The matter of growth
(we are supposing at present) is ac/wad/y incorporeal and actually
devoid of magnitude. It is no mere feature of actual body,
which we can isolate by definition. It is an incorporeal and
sizeless something, having an independent existence, really
‘separate’ from what is corporeal and possessed of magnitude
(* 33 Kexwpirpévys, * 34 xwpiory).

But an incorporeal and sizeless matter, which is thus real
independently of body, may be supposed either (a) to exist alone,
per se; or (b) to exist within (to ‘inexist in’) an actual body,
without being in any sense a part of the body which contains
it (233-34: the matter is supposed to be xeywpiopévyn in both
alternatives). Is growth a process in which oGpa kai péyeOos
result from (a), or from (b)? Aristotle is going to show that
growth cannot take place in either of these two ways (8 34 7) ddvva-
Tov Guporépws; SC. THY avénow yiyverOau, Cf. * 32).

rovrov (#31), SC. rod éx duvdper pev peyeOovs Kal odparos, évre-
exela 8 dowpdrov Kal épeyebovs yiverOar cpa Kal péyeBos.

A. 5. 320229—» 5 115

20% 34-2, 4... aic%rédv. Both alternatives are impossible,
because both assume an incorporeal and sizeless matter which
is ‘ separate’: and if it is ‘separate’, it must be conceived either
(a) as occupying no place, ov (b) as a ‘void’. But (20 2-12) it
cannot be conceived in either of these two ways.

By the excision of 7 before oiov (» 1), we get two alternative
ways of conceiving the ‘separate’ matter, and 7d pey (»2) and
7o d€ (& 3) become intelligible. Zhe first alternative way (a) is
that the matter ‘occupies no place’, and Aristotle suggests ‘the
point’ as an illustration. For though the point ‘possesses
position’ (gow éxe), it cannot be said to ‘occupy place’ (rdzov
katéxew), since nothing can ‘occupy place’ except kurv cdpa,
i.e.a body subject either to dopa or to avéyaus: cf. Aristotle’s
discussion of rémos, Physics A. 1-5, e.g. 212%5-7, 7-8, 28-29.
The second alternative way (b) is that the matter is ‘a void’.
Now Aristotle explains, in the passage of the Physics (A. 6-9)
where he argues that there is no ‘ void’, what 76 xevév is commonly
supposed to mean. By 76 xevdv is meant a didorynpa ev © pndev
éort copa aic@yrdv : i.e. there is supposed to be a place filled (or
capable of being filled) by tangible body, and then, within this
filled place, a gap devoid of tangible body (cf. Physics, l.c., 213%
27-31, 213>31—214® 11). Hence the words kai gépa ovx
aig Onrov (> 2) are rightly added here, as explanatory of xevov. If -
the matter is ‘a void’, it is the empty place of a perceptible (i. e.
tangible) body. It is the spatial content of a body, a body without
the perceptible qualities of a body.

20> 3. TO... etvar. 7d d€, SC. Kevov Kal gHpa oiK aicOyrov.

év Tw eivat, 1.4. évuTdpxew ev GAAw gadpart (20% 34).

To identify the ‘incorporeal separate matter’ with ‘a void’ is
~ to suppose that it exists independently within another body ; and’
we are therefore maintaining the second alternative formulated
above (20% 34: cf. * 20% 31-34). Aristotle shows that this alterna-
tive is untenable, 20> 5-12.

20> 3-5. det . . . cupBeBnkds. (a) Zhe matter of growth can-
not be conceived as occupying no place.

Aristotle’s argument may be put thus :—What results from the
matter of growth (viz. a body possessed of magnitude) is xa atré
_ (per se, intrinsically) somewhere (wov). Hence the matter must
be somewhere, either ‘ intrinsically’ ( fer se), or at least ‘ indirectly’
(xara ovpBeByxds, per aliud). But ‘that which does not occupy
place ’—e. g. a point—is not. somewhere, either per se or per aliud,

12

116 COMMENTARY

The argument turns on the meaning of ‘being somewhere’
(<tvaié rov), which is explained in the Physics. ‘To be 7ov’ is ‘to
be év té7w’: and this means to be contained by an including
body, in such a way that the ‘limits’ or mathematical outlines
(ra éoxata, Ta wépara) of the contained and its continent are ‘in
contact’. When that is so, the outline of the contained body is
its pop or etdos: and the outline of the conéinent is ‘ the primary
place’ (rémos é&v & mpwTw éoriv, or Téros idvos: cf. * 16> 4) of the
contained body. Hence Aristotle defines réros as ‘the limit
of the containing body’; and explains that only a cdma xuyrov
}) xara hopav 7) kat av&mow can be per se ‘in place’ or ‘ some-
where’. Other things, however, e.g. the soul, can be zov or
év rémw per aliud: i.e. indirectly, in virtue of a xwyrdv copa of
which they are, e.g., constituents or adjectives. (Cf. Phys. e.g.
211 10-14, 212%5-7, 31-32, 212 7-12, 27-29.) |

Now it is clear that a point is not ‘in place’ xa@ atro, since it
is not a kwyrov c@pa. But is it not ‘in place’ xara cvpP_eByxés,
e.g. as a part or an adjective of some other xuwyrdv cya? A point
is ‘in’ a line, a line is ‘in’ a surface, a surface ‘in’ a solid: and
is not a solid ‘in’ a xwyrov odua? The answer, according to
Aristotle’s doctrine, is ‘No’. For the ‘mathematical things’ are
not ‘contained in’ the actual bodies: they are adjectival characters
abstracted from the latter (cf. Introd. § 5). Hence none of the
‘mathematical things’ are ‘in place’: cf. e.g. Phys. 208 22-25,
de Caelo 305° 24-31. )

20> 5-12. GANG . . . Umopevovtos. (b) Zhe matter of growth
cannot be conceived as ‘contained tn’ an actual body, whilst retaining
a ‘separate’ being of tts own. :

If the ‘incorporeal and sizeless’ matter were thus zz an actual
body, without being in any sense of it—i.e. neither a part of its
substantial being (xa@ atré, » 4) nor an adjective of it (xara
ovpB_Bynxos)—it would be enclosed within it, as within a vessel.
It would be a xevov : and the actual body would include it, much
as an dyyeiov comprises its contents.

Such a conception of the matter of growth is impossible, as we
can see from the impossibility of an analogous conception of the
matter of yéveo.s. Suppose, e..g., that, when Air comes-to-be out
of Water, the matter of its yéveois, whilst in no sense a part or an
adjective of the Water, is ‘contained within’ it, as in a vessel.
Then (i) the yéveous of the Air would be simply its withdrawal
from the Water, the latter being left unaltered ; but this is not

ree ee os

A. 5. 320> 5-16 117

what in fact occurs (11-12): and (ii), since there would be
nothing to limit the quantity of the matter ‘contained in’ the
Water, there would be nothing to limit the volume of the resulting
Air (10-11), But in fact a given volume of Water generates
only a determinate volume of Air.

I have followed Zabarella in my interpretation of » ro-r11
(daeipous . . . évredexeia).

20) 12-14. BéATiov . . . ph pilav. ‘It is therefore better to
suppose that in all instances of coming-to-be the matter is
inseparable’ (sc. from the actual body in which it is contained)
‘being numerically identical and one with the containing body,
though isolable from it by definition.’

This suggestion is the opposite of the supposition just negatived.
Hence we may regard it as the affirmation of the unexpressed
alternative implied in the formulation of that supposition : cf. 20»
5 ff. ci pev Keywpiopévov ovtws krA. Aristotle is suggesting the right
interpretation of éx duvdpmer peyeOovs, i. e. the true sense in which
the matter of growth is duvdéper péyeOos : cf. * 20% 29.

When Air comes-to-be out of Water, the matter of this yéveous
is really axdépirros from the Water. It is numerically identical
with it. But it is distinct and isolable dy definition (76 Adyw) from
it. The same principle applies in all cases of yéveous (® 13 raw).
When, ¢.2., cdpa kal peyefos ‘come-to-be’ (i.e. 7 growth, cf.
* 208 29-31), the matter of this process is veadly inseparable
from an actual body possessing magnitude. Hence the matter of
growth is not an ‘incorporeal and sizeless something’ with an
independent being of tts own (cf. * 20% 31-34). But from an actual
body, actually possessed of magnitude, we can abstract by definition
the matter of growth. The matter of growth—this abstracted
feature of the actual body—is only potentially (not yet actually)

that actual body of a determinate size, which will result from the

process of growth: hence zz ¢his sense, and in this sense only, the
matter of growth is dvvaper péyeOos Kai copa.

20) 13-14. thy adthy ... dpb, i.e. numerically identical with
the actual body ‘in which’ it is (or rather, from which we can
isolate it by definition).

The inseparability of the vAn of yéeveors from that ‘of avéynors and
of d\Aofwois is a different, though a closely-connected, point
which Aristotle develops below, » 22-25.

20> 14-16. adda... aitias. We saw that body and magnitude
cannot come-to-be out of an incorporeal and sizeless something,

118 COMMENTARY

existing in its own right, but occupying no place: ‘the matter’,
in short, cannot be a kind of ‘point’ (cf. * 20 34 —» 2, * 20b 3-5).

Aristotle now urges that none of the geometrical things—viz.
neither points, lines, planes, nor solids—can be ‘the matter’ out
of which body comes-to-be. He is referring to a type of theory
which he criticizes more fully elsewhere (cf. e.g. de Caelo
298> 33 ff., Metaph. 1001» 26 ff., 1036" 7 ff.). The type of theory
in question regards the products of mathematical analysis as the
real primary constituents of things. From the point of view of
mathematical analysis, the perceptible physical bodies ‘ pre-
suppose’ (are resoluble into) geometrical solids: solid presupposes
the planes which define and contain it: plane similarly pre-
supposes lines, line points, and points are arithmetical units A/us
position. Hence (it was argued) the physical bodies, with all
their sensible qualities, can be generated by a gradual synthesis
of the elementary mathematical entities. Units—or at least
points, lines, and the geometrical figures—are ‘the matter’ of
body. |

The theories of the Atomists (cf. e.g. * 15> 33—16@2)
and of Plato in the Zimaeus (cf. * 15% 29-33, * 1531) are
examples (more or less imperfect) of the type which Aristotle
here condemns. ‘The fundamental error of all such theories lies
in the assumption that 7a paOnparixd are independently real ;
whereas in fact they are adjectival features of the perceptible
bodies, isolable only by definition (cf. * 20% 3-5).

ovd€ oriypas . .. ov6€ ypappas (> 14-15) is, I think, equivalent
to the denial that ra yewperpuxd—i. e. the entities whose ‘ being ’
the geometer tzorierar, and whose essential properties he
proves—can be ‘the matter’ of body: cf.e.g. Post. Anal. 76>»
3-5, Introd. § 6.

dua Tas adras aitias (P 15-16) is not very clear. The reference
appears to be to the whole preceding argument (20% 29 —» 12)
which proves that the matter, out of which a Jdody (with
magnitude) comes-to-be, cannot be something actually zxcorporeal
(and sizeless).

20> 16-17. .éxeivo ... poppys. Aristotle here begins the state-
ment of his own conception of the matter out of which body
(and magnitude) comes-to-be. The statement is completed in the
next sentence, > 17-25.

The matter, out of which body comes-to-be, is that of which
‘points and lines’ are the limits: but it can never exist apart

*

A. 5. 320 16-25 119

from a definite physical shape (uopdy) and perceptible qualities
(zéos). In other words, ‘the matter’ is always az actual body.
having a certain shape and magnitude, and certain sensible
qualities. As we shall see in a moment, however, we can “solate
by definition different features of its being: and these isolable
features are respectively (a) the vAy ovoias cwparixgs (i.e. tpwirn
vAn, the fundamental logical presupposition of yéveows), (b) the
vAn of growth and diminution, and (c) the Ax of ‘alteration’.

20) 17-25. ylyverat... xwptord. Aristotle has just stated that
the matter, out of which a body comes-to-be, is itself another
actual perceptible body. But though this is true, and has been
established elsewhere as well as in the present argument (> 17-19
yiyveran pev ovv ... dudspiorac), ‘nevertheless’ (> 22-25 ered...
xwpiora) ‘since there is also a matter out of which corporeal
substance itself comes-to-be (corporeal substance, however,
already characterized as such-and-such a determinate body, for
there is no such thing as body in general), this same matter is
also the matter of magnitude and quality—being separable
from these matters by definition, but not separable in place
unless Qualities’ and Attributes generally ‘are, in their turn,
separable from Substance ’.

Aristotle’s doctrine may be summarized thus :—Any actual
perceptible body is corporeal substance of a certain size and with
certain aicOyTra way. Its péyebos and its ray are inseparable
from its ‘corporeal substantiality’, which they qualify, and
inseparable from one another: i.e. neither corporeal substance,
nor size, nor any wdOos exists fer se and in the abstract. What
exists is ¢#zs determinate body of such-and-such a size, and of
such-and-such a temperature, colour, smell, &c. One and the
same actual body (¢és individual corporeal substance) is the
subject, of which a certain p¢yeOos and certain 7éOy are predicable :
and its ‘place’ is the ‘place’ in which these adjectives (whose
‘being’ is their inherence in the body) inseparably coexist.
On the other hand, scientific analysis may—and indeed must—
distinguish the body (a) gua zpwérn tAn thus-formed, but capable
of accepting a different form, (b) gwa so-big, but capable of
becoming bigger or smaller, and (c) gua so-hot or so-coloured, but
capable of a different temperature or a different colour. Hence
scientific analysis distinguishes within the actual body (a) a vAy
cwoparuns ovcias, (b) a tAn peyeOous (i.e. a matter of growth and
diminution), and (c) a tAn wdGovs (i.e. a matter of alteration).

120 COMMENTARY

Thus the matter of growth is a certain péyefos, the matter of
alteration a certain aos, and the matter of yéveovs the ‘corporeal
substantiality ’"—of an actual body. These three tAar, though not
really separable, are separable by definition (isolable by scientific
analysis) both from the actual body and from one another.

To suppose that the matter of growth and the matter of
alteration are veally separate from the actual body or from the
matter of yéveovs, would be equivalent to maintaining the separate
existence of wafy—i.e. that an actual péyefos and an actual
sensible quality can ‘be’, without inhering in a substance. Cf.
b 24-25 i py kal Ta TAOy ywpiord. The term 7d6y here includes all
‘adjectivals’, i.e. determinations under any Category other than
that of Substance: cf. *27>17-22. On the other hand, the word
is used in P17 and 23 in the restricted sense of waOyriuy
mowrns OY aidOyrov 7aOos: cf. * 19> 8-10. |

2018-21. domep... yiverat. xal év ddAos: Aristotle is
probably referring to J/efaph. 1032% 12 ff., rather than to Phys.
A. 7. For in the former passage he establishes two universal
laws of yéveows, viz. (i) ‘One actual thing comes-to-be out of
another actual thing’ and (ii) ‘ The efficient cause of every yéveous
is something actual’. Hence he is reminded of the second law
here, and repeats it although it is not strictly relevant to his -
present argument. We must, then, regard » 19-21 (kal td
Twos... yiverat) as a digression, suggested to Aristotle by
association. The words oxdAypov yap ovx td oxAnpod yivera
(b 21), ifthey are genuine, must be read after dpoyevots (> 19) as
an explanatory parenthesis.

The doctrine may be stated thus:—The efficient cause of
yéveors is always ‘actual’, e7ther (i) an actual thing, form embodied
in matter, ov (ii) an actuality, i.e.a ‘form’ (21 % im’ évredexeias).
(i) If it is an actual thing, it is identical (with the thing produced
by the process) either (a) 7” species or (b) im genus. Thus (a) the
father is the efficient cause of the coming-to-be of the child: and
father and child are identical specifically. On the other hand, (b)
a hard thing (e. g. ice or terra-cotta) is not produced by a hard
thing, but by something cold or hot (a freezing wind or a baking
fire) ; cf. Meteor. 382° 22 ff. But though what is cold or hot is
different in species from what is hard, ‘cold’, ‘ hot’, and ‘hard’
are generically identical: for all three belong to the class of
7a amrd. (ii) At other times (viz. in those yevéoes which are
properly called zovjoecs) the efficient cause is not ax actual thing,

A. 5. 320 18—321 29 121

but an actuality or ‘form’. When a work of réxvy comes-to-be,
the process is initiated by the ‘form’ gua present as an ideal in
the soul of the vexvirns. Thus the efficient cause of the
coming-to-be of a house is the oixodopxy téxvy in the architect’s
soul: and the oixodopuxy réxvy ts the ‘form’ of House, or zs the
Adyos in which that ‘form’ is precisely analysed and resynthesized.
Cf. * 35> 34-35, Metaph. 1032° 25 fi.

20625. ék tav Sintopynpevav. The reference is to 20% 27—P 12.

2027-28. xwpiotév . . . mpdtepov. If we suppose that the
matter of growth is devoid of actual p¢ye6os, we shall be postulating
within it—e. g. within the growing thing, or again within the food
(cf. * 21% 5-9)—real ‘ gaps’ or ‘voids’, having an independent
existence of their own. The growing thing (or the food) will
then be conceived as a body with ‘pores’—with ‘places’ for
tangible body, but devoid of it (cf. * 20#34-—2).. But a really-
existent, independent ‘void’ has been shown to be impossible

’ elsewhere (ys. A. 6-9).

Zabarella prefers the variant 76 xowdv, which he interprets as
capa ovk aicOyrdv, i.e. ‘corpus indifferens, potentiale, et nulli
certae naturae alligatum’—or, in other words, as zpwry vA.
But (i) cpa xowdv in > 23 does not mean capa ov aicOyrdv. It
means perceptible body in general, i.e. the indeterminate universal
of the definite perceptible bodies. And (ii) cdma otk aicOyrév in
b 2 is identified with 76 xevdv, not with 7d xowdv.

The false reading, 76 xowdv, probably led to the omission of év
érépors in > 28. For (so far as I am aware) there is no proof
év érépois that 76 Kowvov Cannot exist in separation.

20> go. dhws, i. q. dAds: cf. 26% 28.

20) 33-34. yéveots ... at&jors. As Zabarella rightly observes,
Aristotle does not mean that the vAy of yéveous is devoid of actual
magnitude, i.e. only potentially a body. All that he says is that

“a process from an dpeyéOns vAn’, if tt could occur at all, ‘ would not

be growth, but rather (uaAAov) a body’s coming-to-be ’.

20 34—219 29. Antréov . . . Torodrov, Aristotle here begins
a more thorough treatment of the two topics formulated at
20% 8-10: cf. *20% 1o—22%33. We are ‘to come to closer
quarters with the subject of our investigation ’, ‘to grapple with it
(as it were) from its beginning’, ‘to get to the root of it’
(>34—21°1. Since drrecOu literally applies only to something
corporeal, Aristotle says ofov dmropévovs. Probably wadAov goes
with dwrouévous: cf. Rhet. 1358 8). .

122 : COMMENTARY

With a view to this more thorough treatment, ‘we must
determine the precise character of the Growing and Diminishing
whose causes we are investigating’ (21° 1-2: zoéov, as Zabarella
rightly says, ‘non significat qualitatem, sed essentiam, augmenta-
tionis’). In other words : we must formulate the precise zominal
definitions of avéyors and dics. If we then discover the causes
of growth, we shall be able to convert its xomtna/ into its
adequate scientific definition: cf. Introd. §§ 7-9, * 14% 2-3,
* 21> 16-17.

It will be convenient to anticipate Aristotle’s discussion and to
give a summary statement (i) of the meaning here attributed to
avénows, and (ii) of the causes of avéyouws. The reader should
consult de Anima B. 4 (cf. * 2088), Alexander’s wepi kpdoews Kat
avénoews (ed. Bruns, pp. 233 ff.), and above all Zabarella’s
excellent treatise de Augmentatione.

(i) The term avénous is here restricted to the growth of living
things, though it is used more widely elsewhere. Thus it is
applied (e.g. Phys. 214° 32 ff.) to the increase of volume when
‘air’ (e.g. steam) is generated from water—a case expressly
excluded here (2129-17). A process, which is to be avéyous in
the sense here recognized, must fulfil three conditions :—(a) the
substance of the growing thing must persist, retaining its identity
through the process, (b) the growing thing, as a whole and in
every particle, must get bigger, i.e. must expand so as to
become larger in all three dimensions, and (c) it must get bigger
by taking into itself, and assimilating, food.

Growth, thus conceived, involves yéveots kat pOopd, dddoiwars,
and dopa. For the food must pass-away, i. e. be transformed into
the tissue of the growing thing. There must, e.g., be a POopa of
the bread, which is a yéveous of the blood. Again, in the process
of digestion which growth presupposes, food and stomach
reciprocally ‘act’ and ‘react’ on one another, i.e. reciprocally
‘alter’ one another: cf. the notes on A. 7. Or, as Aristotle
also expresses it, the food is at first ‘unlike’ the tissues which
it is to increase. It has to be ‘made like’ them, and this
assimilation is a change from contrary to contrary qualities, i.e.
dAXoiwos (cf. Phys. 260% 29 ff.; below, 21% 35—22%4). Finally
(cf. * 20% 16-25), growth is necessarily accompanied by a peculiar
kind of dopa.

(ii) There is a twofold matter (i. e. material cause) of growth
(cf. *20% 27 — b 34), viz. (a) the growing thing whose size increases :

a ator ae eee

’

A. 5. 320% 24—321%9 123

this is a body animated by the basal or ‘reproductive’ soul :
and (b) the food which ‘accedes to’, and increases, the growing
thing. There is also a twofold efficient cause of growth, viz.
(a) the basal soul, and (b) the.‘ natural heat’ of the living body
(cf. * 20% 8).

Aristotle refers to the soul as the efficient cause of growth at
21>6-10, 22412, 22% 28-33: but his references are very brief,
and the last passage is.obscure. There does not appear to be
any reference in this chapter to the ‘natural heat’. The ‘ final
cause’ of growth (to which there is no reference here) is the
attainment by the living thing of its ‘normal’ size—i.e. the size
which it ought to have in maturity, if it is to fulfil its vital

_ functions adequately.

The question as to what cause (or causes) must be specified
in the scientific definition of growth, is discussed below: cf.
* 21> 16-17. |

21° 2-29. daivetar... tovdtoy. The ‘nominal definitions’ of
avfyors and pOio.s (in the sense here given to these terms) emerge
from this passage. The growing and diminishing thing exhibits
three characteristics: growth and diminution must conform to
three conditions (cf. preceding note). The first two conditions
are stated at once (@ 2-5), whilst the third is formulated in the
course of-the discussion from ® 9-29.

21° 5-9. dvayxatov... dduvatov, An apparent dilemma con-
cerning the food. The datives (dcwpdtw, odparr) show that
Aristotle is referring to the materia ex gua of growth (76 avgdverat,
or 7O adfov): cf. * 2088, * 2027-34, and the terminology
throughout the rest of the chapter.

The food must be either dowparov or cGya: and yet it cannot
be either. For (a) if the food be doaparov, ‘there will exist
separate a void’ (® 6 éorat ywpiorov Kevov): i.e. the food will be
the empty place of a body, existing independently of a body
(cf. * 208 34— 5 2), and thus there will be a tAy peyéOous existing
in separation from actual body. But this was shown to be
impossible: cf. e.g, * 202 17-25. But (b) if the food be an
actual body, there will be two bodies—the growing thing and
the food—in the same place. Yet such reciprocal interpenetration
of two bodies is also impossible. -

It will be observed that Aristotle here assumes that the
growing thing is a o@pa, i. e. through and through tangible body.
In the Physics (213 18-20) he says that growth was universally

124 COMMENTARY

supposed to imply the real existence of a ‘void’, i.e. of actual
gaps or ‘pores’ in the growing thing: for it was assumed that
the food was a body, and that two bodies could not be dua, i.e.
could not interpenetrate.

The apparent dilemma, which is here developed with regard to
the food, does in fact also apply to the materia in qua of growth,
viz. ro avgavépuevov. That too must be either dowparor (i.e.
a body with real ‘voids’ or ‘ pores’) or cdpa (i.e. through and
through tangible body): and yet it cannot be either. When
Aristotle reformulates the problem of growth, with a view to its
solution, he recognizes that this apparent dilemma applies to the
growing thing: cf. 21515, where 76 o@pa is clearly 76 avgavopevov.

On Aristotle’s own theory, both the food and the growing
thing are actual” bodies. Yet there are no ‘pores’ (no real
‘voids ’): and reciprocal interpenetration of bodies is impossible.
The solution lies in his conception of matter as a dvvapis tov
évavriwv (cf. Phys. 217% 21 —» 28: and see below, * 26 34—278 1).
One and the same vA» (an actual body of a certain size and, e.g.,
a certain density) is capable of becoming actually bigger or
smaller, denser or rarer, &c. But we must not think of a ‘dense’
body as one in which there are few or small ‘pores’, and of
a ‘rare’ body as one with large or many gaps interspacing its
corporeal particles. We must rather conceive of vAy as a material
capable of filling space with all possible degrees of intensity, or
capable of expanding and contracting without a break in its
continuity. In this respect Aristotle’s tin resembles ‘ das Reale’,
as Kant conceives it: cf. Kritik d. r. Vernunft, ‘ Anticipationen d.
Wahrnehmung’.

21° 9-29. ddd\a...To.odrov. We cannot evade the apparent
dilemma as regards the matter of growth, by quoting the
generation of air (e.g. steam) out of water. It is true that there
is an increase of volume ; that the matter—viz. the water—is not
incorporeal ; and that yet there is no reciprocal interpenetration
of two bodies. But the change is not atfyo.s in the sense here
defined, for two of the three characteristic conditions are
unfulfilled : (1) there is no accession of fresh material, and (ii)
there is no perceptible substance persisting through the change
(cf. * 20b 3421829, * 2192-29). The change is a Popa of
water and a yéveors of air (cf. 19> 16-18): it is not a growth of
either, since neither persists. It might, indeed, be suggested
(21% 14-17) that something common to water and air—e. g.

A. 5. 32129—bio. 125

‘body ‘—persists, and that the increase of volume is a growth of
this persisting ‘body’. But no actual body—no ferceptible
substratum common to water and air—does persist: for zpary
vAy, which ‘ persists’ and is transformed in the change, is not an
actual body and has no ‘ separate’ existence. Hence the change
is not a kivyors at all (and therefore not a xivyots xara roody, not
avgéyors), but yéveors kal POopa: cf. * 17> 34-35, * 19> 6—208 7.

21°18. tw Adyw. As Zabarella points out, it comes to the same
thing whether we translate ‘we must preserve by our account’ or
‘by our definition’: for our account is to be the nominal definition
of avéyors.

2I* 22-26. év... pever: cf. 19> 6—20% 2.

219 27. pydé Smopévovtos. These words rather disturb the logic.
Still it would be rash to excise them, for Aristotle is not as a rule
pedantically accurate.

21929. rTolTo, sc. Td dtropevew TO avgavopuevov, the third
characteristic condition of growth. We should rather have
expected ratra: but Aristotle is thinking of the attempt to view
the generation of air from water as avéyou. The primary
ground of the failure of this attempt is the violation of the third
condition of growth: cf. *21® 9-29. It is a/so true that ‘there
is no accession of fresh material’: but that is an inevitable
consequence of the absence of a persisting substratum, since there
is nothing to which fresh material could accede.

21°29-—b10. dmopyoee... todtw, The matter of growth, as
we have seen, includes the food as well as the living body.
Which of these is it that grows? We speak of a man ‘growing in
his shin’: i. e. we regard the shin (the materia in gua) as ‘ that which
grows’. Is this because the shin is that to which the new material
(the food) is added, and therefore that which has increased in
size? But if B is added to A, both B and A have increased: so
that, from that point of view, both the shin and the food have
increased in size, and both have ‘grown’. We should expect 76
avgavopyevov to include both: just as, when wine is mixed with
water, the volume of the mixture as a whole—i.e. the volume of
both and of either of the ingredients—is greater. The real
reason why the shin only (and not the food, nor both shin and
food together) is said to have ‘ grown’, is that the substance of
the shin persists, whilst that of the food is transformed: and that
the efficient cause of the process (i.e. the av&yrixy wox7y) is in the
shin, but not in the food.

126 COMMENTARY

21* 30. mpootiBerat. It is not really zpdobeors, but more like
piées (cf. ® 33, 229): though, as we shall see, it is not (strictly
speaking) pigis either. Cf. * 27> 13-17.

21* 31-32. otov... ov, ‘e.g. if a man grows in his shin, is it
the shin which is greater’ and thus has ‘grown’, ‘whilst that
‘“‘ whereby ” he grows, viz. the food, is not greater, and has not
*‘ srown ” ?’

No mark of interrogation is required after ov’, because the
question is indirect, depending on dmopjoee 8 ay tis. In ®31
avédave. is intransitive both times (cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 78> 6, Hist.
Anim. 629% 21), the implied subject is 6 d&v@pwros or 76 Gov, THY
kvnwnv is an ‘internal’ accusative, and the dative o (for which F
wrongly gives 6) is undoubtedly right: cf. eg. & & HAAolwrar
(21> 5), and * 212 5-9.

2I* 33-34. Spotws... éxdtepov. mAclov (not pete) shows that
this clause refers to the ingredients of the piypa. dpoitws, i.e. if the
wine has increased in volume, so—on the same principle—has
the water.

21° 35->2. éwet ... ptypa. Even the example, which seemed to
show that 76 aigavdmevov includes both the shin and the food,
really confirms the true view, viz. that only the shin ‘grows’.
For it is the ‘ prevailing’ ingredient only which is said to have
increased in volume (#35 A€yerau, SC. rActov: » t Oru olvos, SC. TAcwv).
If the mixture as a whole acts as wine, then wine is the ‘ prevailing ’
ingredient and z¢s volume is said to have increased. So, in growth,
the substance of the shin persists and prevails over the food, which
is transformed. Hence the shin alone is said to have grown.

21>2-10. dyoiws ... TodTw. Alteration is here adduced as
a parallel to growth: for 7d éddAowtpevov and 76 & 7AAotwrat
correspond respectively to 76 avavduevov and 7d o adédve, and rd
adXowotv (the efficient cause of caesar corresponds to 7d
abgéyrixov (cf. 228 12).

Aristotle illustrates by an alteration Pe flesh (» 3), because he is
thinking primarily of dddoiwors gua contributory to avénors :
cf. * 20% 34—214 29.

2154. tév xa até. For ra xa’ aitd réOy in this sense, cf.
* 19> 10-12, * 19 26-27. a at

215-6. 6... Kdxeivo. 7d 6 #AAOlwra is the external stimulus
(cf. * 20% 8) of alteration, corresponding to the materia ex qua of
growth (the food). The fire,e.g. is ‘that, whereby’ our
‘temperature is altered.

A, §. 3219 30—>17 127

On the distinction here implied between (i) an ‘altering agent’
which is itself affected by the reaction of the patient, and (ii) an
‘altering agent’ which is da6és, see * 242 24 —? 22, ;

21>6-10. &d\da... toUTw. The ddAoiwors is not predicated of
the ‘stimulus’, even though (in some alterations) the latter is
itself affected. The flesh or the stomach, e. g., (not the food) is 76
d\Aovovpevov, the proper subject of the process. For the ‘altering
agent’ Aroper (rd ddXAowiv in the sense of the dpy7 THs KwHTews OF
To Kwodv) is ‘in’ the -flesh or the stomach, not ‘in’ the food.

Simiiarly the food is not 76 avgavdpuevoy, even if it gets larger
in some instances of growth. For (a) the food’s substance does
not persist, and (b) ‘ the agent’ of the growth—its efficient cause—
is not ‘in’ the food, but ‘in’ the living body. For ‘the agent’
proper (ro xwodv) is the soul: cf. * 2088, and 22% 12 (70 évov
aveénrtiKov). |

21h9. olov...mvedyua. Aristotle may be thinking of the
conversion of a flatulent food into wind, as Zabarella suggests.
But more probably he has in mihd the maintenance and growth
of the gudurov (or ovpputov) rvetua: cf. de Spiritu 481% 1 ff.

21> 10-16. éwel .. . adfdveo8ar. In order ‘to find a solution of
the problem’ (? 11 ris azopias, sc. the entire problem of growth),
Aristotle reformulates the results of his discussion of ¢he process
and the -matter of growth. In 11 airéy refers to the two
questions, viz. (i) what is Growing or Diminishing (214 1-2), and
(ii) what is 76 avigavopevov (21% 29-32)? These two questions are
themselves only restatements of the two topics put forward at
20% 8—r1o, viz. (i) how growth is distinctively defined, and (11)
how growth takes place: cf. * 208 1o— 22 33.

21b14. étiodv onpetov aigOytdv. ‘Every perceptible particle’:
for a body does not consist of points.

21> 15-16. cal... adédvecOar, Aristotle here assumes (i) that
the food is a ‘body’, and (ii) that the growing body (15 76 cdpa,
i,q. 70 adfavouevov) has no real ‘voids’ or ‘pores’ in it: cf.
* 21% 5-9. |

21> 16-17. Anmréov... aitiov. We have formulated the ‘nominal
definition’ of growth: for (i) we have stated the kind of process
which growth is, and (ii) we have indicated what 75 adgavdpevov
is, i.e. the substance in which growth ‘inheres’ or of which it is
a mdOos. If we can discover the adequate cause connecting
growth with the substance which grows, we shall be able to
construct a scientific definition, specifying (a) the substance in

128 COMMENTARY

which, (b) owing to a determinate cause, (c) that determinate
process, which ‘ growth’ means, must occur. Cf. Introd. §§ 8, 9:
* 14% 2-3, * 200 34214 29, * 28> 22,

What is this ‘adequate cause’ of growth? What corresponds in
the scientific definition of growth to ‘ extinction of fire’ and
‘interposition of the earth’ in the definitions of thunder and
eclipse (cf. Introd., 1.c.) ?

On the whole, I think that Zabarella has given the right answer
to this question :—see, besides his note on the present passage,
his Commentary on Post. Anal. 94% 20-35, and his treatise
De medio demonstrationts, ii, especially Chapters 4-7.

The gist of the matter is as follows. ‘Thunder and eclipse are
a0 linked to their subjects by causes ‘external to’ (i. e. separated
in space from) those subjects. The nature of the clouds or of the
moon is not fer se (does not contain in itself) an adequate ground
for the occurrence of thunder or eclipse: ‘ external’ causes (in
these instances, external ‘ efficient causes’) are required to deter-
mine their inherence in their subjects.

But growth is linked with its subject by an ‘immanent? cause,
viz. by the nature or ‘form’ of the growing thing itself. The
growing thing is an éuvxov cGua—a body, whose ‘form’ is the
basal soul (the yoy yevvntixy or avfytixyn, cf. * 20% 8)—and, as
such, it is (i) necessarily receptive of growth, i.e. of ‘a process
fulfilling the three characteristic conditions (cf. * 20> 34 —21® 20).
Such a process cam occur in a cpa gua informed by the basal
soul; and it can occur nowhere else. The ‘ form’ of the growing
thing is thus the adequate ground of the possibility of growth.
From this point of view, the growing thing, in virtue of the basal
soul which is its ‘form’, may be called ¢he material cause of
growth—in the sense which Aristotle gives to ‘material cause’ in
Post. Anal. 94% 20-35. But (ii) the same basal soul is also the
(immanent) efficient cause of growth, though Aristotle says very
little about it here from that point of view. Apparently, how-
ever, the occurrence and continuance of growth, and also its
cessation and reversal (i.e. ‘diminution’), are to be ascribed
to the basal soul gua efficient cause: cf. 22% 28-33. If that is so,
then the ‘form’ of the growing thing is the adequate cause, not
only of the possibility, but also of the actual occurrence, of growth
and diminution.

If the proposed interpretation be right, the unsatisfactoriness of
Aristotle’s doctrine is obvious enough. He is ‘explaining’ growth

A. 5. 3215 17-22 129

by referring it to the basal soul—i.e. to 76 aiéyrixév—as its cause.
Incidentally, however, as we shall see, there are details of con-
siderable interest in his account.

21> 1722 33. Siopicapévors . . . pevet. The plan of this
passage, in which Aristotle expounds his own theory of growth,
is as follows :— °

(i) 2117-22. The cause of growth is the ‘form’ of the growing
thing (see preceding note). Hence, if we are to grasp the cause,
we must determine frecise/y what the growing thing is: and for
that purpose our attention is drawn to two preliminary dis-
tinctions.

(ii) 21522—22°4. The growing thing, whether ‘tissue’ (6o10-
fepés) or ‘organ’ (dvopovopepes), grows—i.e. gets larger—as a
whole (as form-in-matter), and does so by the accession of food.
But this does not mean that food accedes to every part of the
matter of the tissue or organ. The matter is in constant flux,
always flowing in and out, and no material particle endures. We
can only say that food accedes to every part of the tissue or organ
gua form : i.e. the growth of the whole is a uniform proportional
expansion of its ‘figure’ or ‘structural plan’. The food is at
first ‘unlike’ the growing thing: but in the process it is trans-
formed and thus ‘assimilated ’.

(iii) 22@ 4-16. An attempt is made to explain more precisely
how the food is related to the growing thing, what its ‘assimilation’
is and how it is effected.

(iv) 22° 16-28. Growth is distinguished from nutrition: and it
is explained more definitely 2” zvhat sense (in growth) a determinate
amount e.g. of flesh comes-to-be out of a food which is only
potentially so-much-flesh. ) )

(v) 22° 28-33. The ‘form’ of the growing thing—i.e. the basal
soul, which shows itself as the ‘structural plan’ of the matter
wherein it is immersed (cf. * 21> 24—25)—is the efficient cause of
growth and diminution.

a1>17-19. &v ... €xactov. First preliminary distinction. The
growing thing is ezther a épouopepés, or an avoporopepes (cf. * 14% 19):
but the latter grows only by the growth of its constituent duovomep7.
The doromepy here in question are the ‘tissues’ of plants and
animals, though Aristotle illustrates only from animals.

21b 19-22, eed’ . . . dotodv. Second preliminary distinction.
Flesh, or bone, or any tissue, is double in its nature: a fact
which is indicated by linguistic usage. For these terms are

2254 K

130 COMMENTARY

applied ambiguously, so that they mean sometimes the tissue gua
matter, and af other times the tissue gua form.

A tissue (e.g. flesh), considered in abstraction from the living
body to which it belongs, is simply a pxx#év—a mere chemical
compound, Its mafter is the four ‘simple bodies’ (or rather the
four ‘elementary qualities’) and its form is adequately expressed
in their ‘combining-formula’ (Adyos ths pigews). Similarly an
organ (e.g. the hand), considered in abstraction from the living
body to which it is organic, is simply an aggregate of tissues.
Its matter is the tissues, of which it is composed, and its form
their ‘synthesis’ (cf. *14%19). It is in this sense that
Alexander (zepi xpdoews kai av&joews, ed. Bruns, p. 235, ll. 17 ff.)
interprets the distinction between matter and form of tissues and
organs in the present passage.

But it is clear from what follows that Aristotle is thinking of
tissues and organs as constituents of the living organism, i.e. as
themselves ‘ besouled’ or alive. The matter of the Zving tissue
is the chemical compound, i.e. the tissue itself gua puydév: and
its form is the soul or ‘life’. And the matter of the animate organ
(the living hand, e.g.) is the synthesized tissues. Its forrn is the
soul, which manifests itself in the organ’s function (épyor),
originating the movements and vital processes whereby the organ
contributes to the maintenance of the life of the whole éuvyov
(cf. e.g. * 21> 28-32, Metaph. 1036” 28-32, 1025” 32—1026* 6,
Meteor. 389 23 —390? 14).

21> 24-25. Set... ywduevov. The primary object of this simile
is to illustrate the flux of the flesh gua matter, and its persistence
qua form. ‘The form is the soul: but it is manifested in the
matter as a ‘figure’, a ‘structural plan’ or a‘scheme of pro-
portions ’, which limits or measures the matter. The use of the
term pérpov suggests the application of the illustration to growth.
If we suppose the ‘measure’ of the flowing water to be, e.g.,
a bag of skin, open at both ends, inherently capable of expansion.
and contraction, the simile will illustrate the growth and diminution
of a tissue. For a tissue—e.g.a bone or a muscle (a piece of
odp£)—may be compared to a ‘duct’ (an aidds: cf. * 22% 28-33;
Philoponos, pp. 10g, 110; Alexander, l.c., p. 237, ll. 25 ff),
capable of expansion and contraction according as the matter,
which flows through it and fills it, increases and diminishes in
amount. ‘The duct, as that which limits and measures the tissue,
may be regarded as jts ‘figure’ or ‘form’. But the duct is the

A. 5. 3215 24-34 131

embodied vitality—the embodied power of expanding and con-
tracting, growing and diminishing—which zs the basal soul: for
that soul is dvvapis tis év An (22* 20).

The words dei. . . ywopevov (» 25) refer, I think, to the matter
of the tissue, not to the water: ‘for particle after particle comes-
to-be, and each successive particle is different.’

21> 25-28. odtw . .popiw. Growth is a uniform proportional
expansion of the figure or structural plan of the tissue, an increase
in which every part of the ‘ form’ gets larger.

The form of the living tissue, as we know (* 21° 19-22), is the
soul: but the soul is essentially an «tdos evvAov, a dvvapus ev VAn,
and it is manifested in the figure or ‘scheme of proportions’
which limits or ‘measures’ the tissue. Hence Aristotle can
speak of ‘an accession to each part of the form’ (cf., however
* 21b 33-34), i.e. to each part of the embodied soul or materialized
power. It is essential to the soul to animate a corporeal material,
i.e. a guantum: and, in so far as the whole tissue is larger or
smaller, its ‘form’ (i.e. its soul or vitality) is expanded or con-
tracted, informing a greater or smaller guantum.

21> 28-32. émi . . . Bpaxiwy. Though what grows is the
animated matter as a whole (as a otvodov of form and matter),
its growth is a uniform expansion of structural plan—an expansion
of the scheme of proportions measuring the matter, not an
addition to persisting material constituents. This fact—viz. dr
dvddoyov nvénra, »29—is more manifest in the growth of the
‘organs’ than in that of the ‘tissues’, because the distinction of
the form (the life embodied in the proportional structure, and
expressed in the vital function, or épyov) from the mazter is more
obvious in the former than in the latter (cf. AZeteor. 389» 29g—
3902). For the same reason (> 31-32), conversely, there is
more tendency to attribute ‘flesh’ and ‘bone’ to the corpse than
‘hand’ and ‘arm’. In fact, what really persists for a time in the
corpse is neither ‘hand’ and ‘arm’, nor ‘ flesh’ and ‘ bone’, but
lifeless puyOévra (which we may mistake for ‘ tissues’) and
ovvbéces-of-pix evra bereft of the life which made them ‘organs’ :
cf. * 21> 19-22.

21> 33-34. kata...ov, ‘For there has been an accession to
every part of the flesh gua form, but not gva matter’—a more
accurate statement of the doctrine than that given above, » 27-28
(rod 5& cxHparos Kat Tod ci8ous Stwodv popiw, SC. rporyiverar). But
the fundamental difficulties of the doctrine, it need hardly be

K 2

132 COMMENTARY

said, remain unsolved. How can the ‘form ’—the soul, or the
embodied soul—expand? And what is meant by ‘accession to
every part’, whether of the flesh gva form, or of the form itself ?
Aristotle attempts, in the following passage, to explain in what
sense the food ‘ accedes’.

21> 35—22° 4. peilov . . . dvopoiw. The acceding body (the
‘food’) is at first ‘unlike’ the growing tissue, and is called
‘contrary’ to it. But in the process it is ‘transformed’ so as to
be ‘assimilated’, i.e. made ‘like’ the tissue. Expressing this in
the current contemporary phraseology (cf. e. g. 23% 1-15), we can
say ‘In one sense Lzke grows by Lzke, but in another sense
Unttke grows by Unlthe’.

In 22*1 EJ read évavriov, perhaps rightly. If we adopt this
reading, we must take 6 xaAeirar tpopy as a parenthesis. évavriov,
1.q. avopovov: Cf. de Anima 416% 29-34.

22° 4-16. amopyjcee . . . yéveots. Aristotle restates—in his
own terminology, and more fully—his doctrine concerning the
food.

The food is at first only potentially the tissue, actually a
different body: actually e.g. bread, only potentially flesh. ‘As-
similation’ is transformation, the passing-away of the bread and
the coming-to-be of flesh. But it is a ‘transformation’ with two
peculiar features: for (i) it presupposes that the food and the
tissue have been ‘ mixed together’, so as to be contained within
one and the same immediately-continent place, and (ii) the agent
of the transformation is not in the food (the food is not of ttse/f
transformed into flesh), but in the tissue. The ai€yrixdv, im-
manent in the tissue, converts the food into flesh.

22°6-10. pOapev...yix8év; ‘ This actual other, then, viz. the
food, has passed-away and come-to-be flesh. But it has not
been transformed into flesh alone by itself (for that would have
been a coming-to-be, not a growth): on the contrary, it is the
growing thing which has come-to-be flesh [and grown] 4y the
food. In what way, then, has the food been modified by the
growing thing so as to be transformed into flesh? Perhaps we
should say that it has been mixed with the growing thing, as if
one were to pour water into wine, and the wine were able to
convert the new ingredient into wine.’

The subject of ra6dv in *8 is not 7d aigavopevov, but 7rd 6
avgdverat, 1.€. the food: for (i) it is more natural to suggest that
the food is ‘mixed’ with the tissue, than vice versa, (ii) the whole

A. 5. 3215 35-3229 13 133

problem concerns the food (cf. %4-5 admopyoeae . . . aigavera),
and (iii) i265 tovrou (® 8-g) ought to mean ‘by the agency of this,
i.e. the growing thing’, and not simply ‘ by this’, i. e. ‘ by the food’
as To @avgavera. But if so, then nvé7Oy (*9) is impossible. We
may either (i) reject 7ié70y as a misplaced and mistaken marginal
gloss on adda 70 adgavdpevov Ttov’rw (*8), or (ii) accept it as
genuine, and read it after rovrw (®8), or (iii) correct it into
nvénoev (cf. ce), (i) The excision of niéy6y is the simplest
remedy. We should then have to supply in thought capé
yéyoverv (# 7) as the verb, of which rotro (* 7), 7d aivgavopevov (* 8),
and the substantive implied by zafév (*8) are the subjects.
(ii) If we read yiéy6y after tovTw (#8), we must regard it as an
equivalent, but more natural, expression for cdpé yéyovev. If
flesh grows, more flesh comes-to-be: but it is more natural to
say ‘the growing-thing—1i. e. the flesh—has grown’, than to say,
‘the growing-thing has come-to-be flesh’. We must still supply
aap& yeyovey as the verb for rodro in *7, and for adv in
®8. (iii) The chief objection to nvéncer is that it is so obvious
a correction. | |

2299, pix9év. It is not, strictly speaking, a case of pigs: cf.
* o7b 13-17, .

22° 9-10. 6... pixOév; 6 dé, Sc. 6 Se olvos. 7d pryOev according
to Aristotle’s usual terminology means ¢he compound which results
from combining two or more ingredients. But, in view of *9
(} ptxGev), it should probably be interpreted here as the new
ingredient, i. e. the water. -

22° 10-13. kat... adpxa, Fire lays hold of the inflammable
material and converts it into fire. Similarly the avégyrixdv,
immanent in the flesh, lays hold of the food (which is potentially
flesh) and converts it into actual flesh. It consumes the food, as
the fire consumes the wood. The comparison is specially appro-
priate, owing to the part played by 76 cvppurov Oepydy in digesting,
and thus assimilating, the food: cf. * 20% 8, * 20 34—21° 29, * 29>
24-26, ; |

The unexpressed main verb, of which 76 zip (# 10) is the sub-
ject, is éroinoev évtedexeia wip: and zpoceAOdvros duvdmer capKds

_ (# 12-13) is the object of an unexpressed dydpevov. It would be

easier, no doubt, if Aristotle had written (rod) tpooeAOdrtos (Kal)
Suvdper capKds. |

22°13. odKodv dua dvtos, SC. didpevov TO advfytixdy érolnoev
évreAexeia oapxa. For the meaning of dua, cf. * 16> 4.

134 COMMENTARY

22°15. avénots. This is not avéyors in the sense given to the
term in the present chapter: cf. * 20> 34—21% 29. It is, however,
analogous to growth, because—as Zabarella expresses it—‘ignis ex
propria et insita virtute convertit combustibilia in se ipsum’.

22° 16-20. roodv... woogs. The food is an actual body of a cer-
tain size, e.g. a piece of bread of such and such cubic content.
This actual body is potentially another actual body (the bread is
potentially flesh), and its actual size is potentially a different size.
Hence what comes-to-be in growth is not guantum-in-general out
of the mere potentiality of guantum, but a tissue or an organ of
a determinate size out of (by the accession of) e.g. a piece of bread
of a (different) determinate size.

A similar principle holds in yéveows. What comes-to-be is not
animal-in-general, but such-and-such a specifically determinate
animal (in #17 we should probably read pyre te rév with H®!T).

Philoponos points out that the parallel, as Aristotle here states
it, breaks down if pressed. For man, e.g., comes-to-be out of
a matter which is not an ‘animal’, whereas a piece of flesh of
such-and-such a size does not come-to-be in growth out of a matter
devoid of magnitude. But Aristotle is thinking primarily of the
resultant, and not of the ma¢ter: otherwise he could have made
the parallel exact. For just as the food, out of which the new
guantum comes-to-be, is itself an actual guantum ; so the matter,
out of which the new body comes-to-be, is itself an actual body
(cf. * 20b 16-17).

22° 19. odp§.. . duoropepy. ‘But what does come-to-be in
growth is a something-quantified—so-much flesh or bone;

or a hand or arm of such-and-such a size, i.e. the quantified
tissues of these organic parts.’

I have added % Bpaxiwv after xeip by conjecture: cf. 21> 32.
D> reads 7 xelp 7 vetpa. But vetpov is a dpmoropepes (cf. e.g.
Meteor. 385% 8), and we want a second dvopovopepés to justify
the plural rovrwr.

22° 20-28. 4... tpopy. Cf. de Anima 416% 19 —) 31.

22° 20-22. ...odpka. ‘In so far as this acceding food is
potentially the double result—e. g. is potentially so-much flesh—
it produces growth: for it is bound to become actually both
so-much and flesh’ (cf. 22% 26-28). 7d cvvapyddrepov is the predi-
cate. It means ‘that which combines both the new substance
and the new quantity’, * ;

22% 24. kai @8ivov. Nutrition continues through life: whether

A, 5.. 322° 15-33 135

there is growth (or diminution) as well, depends upon whether the
living thing is able to assimilate more (or only less) food than is
required to repair the waste of its tissues.

22° 25-26. kai... dAdo. Cf. *19>3-4. The same difference
is expressed above (# 23-24) in the words ravry ... 7G Aéyw: for
the definitions of nutrition and growth state what 75 rpodq etvar
and 76 avgyoeu elvac respectively are.

22°28. tpopy, i.e. ‘nourishment’, ‘food gwa nutritive’: not
(as e.g. at ® 25) ‘nutrition’. )

22° 28-33. toito...péver. ‘As to this form’ (the ‘form’
which grows in every part of itself, cf. 21> 22-34), ‘it is a kind of
power immersed in matter—a duct, as it were. If, then, a matter
accedes—a matter, which is potentially a duct and also potentially
possesses determinate quantity—the ducts to which such matter
accedes will become bigger. But if this form or power is
no longer able to act—if it has been weakened by the continued in-
flux sof matter, just as water, continually mixed in greater and
greater quantity with wine, in the end makes the wine watery and
converts it into water—then it will cause a diminution of the
quantum of the tissue in which it is ; though still the form persists.’

All the manuscripts, Bekker, and Prantl read didos, didou. But
adios does not occur elsewhere in Aristotle, makes nonsense of the
passage, and leaves ofrou (#30) without an antecedent. After
éoriv (229) J has, in the first hand, éyofws S kat dAAo % 71 ody
dpyavov, and the same words are implied in I’ and Vatablus.
Moreover, Vatablus renders diAos, dvAo. by ‘tibia’, ‘ tibiae’.
Clearly, then, there was a reading aiAds, addAol.

I have excised dvev tAys (*# 28) as a marginal note intended to
explain or correct the un-Aristotelian dvAos: and I regard the
additional clause in J, I, and Vatablus as a marginal note intended
to explain the variant aiAds—the annotator having misinterpreted
avdds as ‘flute’, i.e. the stock Aristotelian example of an dpyavov
(cf. e.g. Meteor. 389” 31—390% 2).

Aristotle uses avAds for various kinds of ‘ducts’ or ‘channels’
in an animal’s body: cf. Bonitz, Jud. 122° 26 ff. My conviction
that Aristotle wrote aiAds, avAoé here (in the sense of ‘duct’) is
confirmed by 21> 24-28 (see * 21> 24-25). It is noticeable also
that Philoponos, although he reads duAos, diAou here, in a previous
note (pp. 109, 1. 26—r 10, 1. 7) illustrates growth by atAoedis Knpds,
uses avAds in the sense of a ‘duct’ or ‘channel’, and speaks of
Ta avAoedn dora.

136 COMMENTARY

22° 31-33. éav...pévet. The ‘form’ is the embodied yp x7
adgyriucy, the dvvayus adgéytixy which is essentially immersed in
matter: cf. *21b 25-28. As the animal grows old, this ‘power’
—the efficient cause of nutrition and growth—becomes weaker,
i.e. unable to assimilate sufficient food to balance the waste of the
tissues (cf. * 22224). Aristotle compares this enfeeblement of
the adgéyrixdv to the weakening of wine, when more and more
water is mixed with it. But the parallel is not exact: for the
‘form’ of the tissue remains (* 33), whereas the wine is ultimately
converted into water fg 42):

Aristotle’s meaning is clear: but the illustration i 31-32 GAA’...
kat vowp) is rather loosely attached to the main sentence. What
has to be illustrated is the decay of the power embodied in the
tissue: but what zs expressed in the illustration is the action of the
water in weakening the wine.

A. 6

22> 1-26. "Emei. .. moinors. Aristotle has completed the first
part of his task. He has given the ‘ nominal definitions’ of yéveots
and 6opa, of ddAXotwors and of ad€yous, thus distinguishing these
changes from one another: and he has shown that yéveous and
0opa actually occur. He now prepares to attack the second part
of his task, viz. the discovery of the causes of yéveois and 6opa
(cf. e.g. * 149 2-3, * 178 32—19) 5, * 20> 3421 20),

He selects as first for treatment ‘ the matter’, the material con-
stituents out of which the composite natural bodies come-to-be
and into which they pass-away. These material constituents are,
as we Shall learn later, ‘the simple natural bodies ’—Earth, Air,
Fire, and Water. For 7m the last resort every yéveois of a com-
posite natural body is the coming-to-be of one or more new
dpowomeph, and every $Oopa of a composite body is the dis-
appearance of one or more existing dnov0jepy. And every épovopepés
is a chemical compound whose constituents are Earth, Air, Fire,
and Water (cf. * 14* 19).

The first eight chapters of the second book—a section of the
work to which Aristotle refers (de Anima 42329; de Sensu 441»
12) as Ta repli ororyeitwy—are devoted to the consideration of these
material constituents of the éyovouep7. But these material con-
stituents—‘the so-called elements ’—constitute the doromep_ by
chemical combination (piéis)\: ‘combination’ implies action and
passion (movetv Kal maoxew, rotnors): and both pigis and zoiyors

A, 5. 322% 31 —6. 322b3 137

imply physical contact (api 4 ev trois pvorxois). Hence Aristotle
explains apy (22> 26—23° 34), qoveiy Kal raoyxew (23 1-—27% 20),
and pigis (27% 30—28>22), as a necessary preliminary to his
treatment of the material constituents of the dpovopepy (cf. also
Introd. § 12).

22b1-2. ’Emel... eimetv. In discussing the causes of coming-
to-be ‘we must first investigate the matter, i.e. the so-called
elements’... Zabarella is, I think, right in taking zpdérov to
refer to the order in which Aristotle proposes to investigate the
causes of yéveois and pOopa. We are to begin with che material
cause, i.e. ‘the matter’ in the sense of those material constituents
of the ésocouepy which are generally called ‘the elements’.

The words xal rév Kadovpéevwv oroxe(wy are explanatory of ris
vAns. Aristotle has already treated of the An of yéveors and Popa
in the sense of rpwry vAn (cf. A. 3, and e.g. * 174 32—19"5): he
is now to treat of the vAy in a different sense. He is not now
concerned with that conditio sine gua non of unqualified yeéveois and
$Oopa which ultimate analysis forces us to ‘isolate by definition’
(cf. * 20> 17-25), but with ¢he actually-existent antecedents of
yéveous—the proximate materials out of which the dépowopepy
come-to-be and into which they pass-away. These are them-
selves ‘bodies’, perceptible things, viz. Earth, Air, Fire, and
Water. ‘According to Aristotle’s own doctrine, they are ‘simple’
or elementary dodies (ra. éarXG odpara), i. e. they cannot be dissolved
into any more primitive corporeal constituents. But they pre-
suppose (logically, though not temporally) more primitive ‘con-
stitutive moments’: for they are informations of zpwryn vAn,
explicable in terms of wpwrn vAn and ‘the contrary qualities’
(Hot, Cold, Dry, Moist). Aristotle prefers to reserve the term
oroxeia for the absolutely underivative and unanalysable immanent
dpxai of ‘body’, viz. zpaéry vAy and the eéis and orépyois which
are its primary ‘constitutive moments’: cf. e.g. AZefaph. 1070»
22-30, *29%5. Hence here and elsewhere (cf. Bonitz, Zud. 702»
'2—7) he refers to the simple bodies as ra xaAovpeva ororxeta, the
commonly so-called ‘elements’ (cf. e.g. 28> 31, * 29%24—53;
and see Diels, Elementum, p. 25,).

22> 9-3. elt’... ylyverai mws. This is the first of two questions
(to be discussed in the second book) concerning the material con-
stituents of the éuouopepy. ‘Are they really orocyeta (as they are
commonly called) or not? In other words, are they eternal, or
is there a sense in which they come-to-be ?’

138 COMMENTARY

The words kai... yéyverai wws are explanatory of «ir’ éoriv cite
yu. The question is not whether Earth, Air, Fire, and Water exist,
but whether they are orovxeta, i.e. primary and underivative con-
stituents of things. If they are orovyeta, they must be did.a, as
e.g. Empedokles maintained (cf. * 154 4-8).

It will be convenient at this point to restate Aristotle’s doctrine
of the simple bodies as constituting the physical universe. In rough
outline, as the reader will remember (cf. Introd. § 10), that doctrine
is as follows :—The physical universe is divided into the Upper
Cosmos or heavens, and the Lower Cosmos or sublunary world.
The Upper Cosmos consists entirely of the Aether. The Lower
Cosmos is a series of concentric spherical strata. The lowest of
these s¢rata—the central region both of the sublunary world and
of the whole universe—is Earth. The next stratum, imme-
diately surrounding Earth, is Water. Air immediately envelops
Water: and the uppermost s¢vatwm, immediately surrounding Air,
is Fire.

This rough outline must now be supplemented and corrected.
For though it is an accurate summary of Aristotle’s doctrine as that
is stated in many passages, it totally neglects another most impor-
tant side of his teaching: and,-by that omission, it suggests the
erroneous view that the physical universe, as he conceives it, is
a static arrangement of quiescent strata.

(i) Not much need at present be said with regard to the Upper
Cosmos (see, for a fuller account, e.g. *36%14-— 10). The
Aether, which constitutes it, is anything but quiescent: on the
contrary, it is eternally-revolving. But there is no interchange
between the Aether and the simple bodies of the Lower Cosmos.
The Aether is in no sense identical with, or kin to, Earth, Air, Fire,
and Water. Hence there can be no qoveiy cat raoyev, and there-
fore no reciprocal contact, between the two worlds. Yet Aristotle
maintains that there is a one-sided connexion. For the lowest
sphere of the heavens is conterminous with the uppermost s¢vatum |
of the sublunary world. Hence the Upper Cosmos ‘touches’
and ‘moves’ and ‘steers’ (cf. AMeseor. 339% 21-24) the Lower,
without itself being ‘touched’ or moved or in any way affected by
the latter (cf. * 22> 32—23 34, * 23% 12-22, * 23% 25-33).

But (ii) as regards the Lower Cosmos, we must recognize not
only that each s¢vatum is far from quiescent, but also that all four
simple bodies are in constant process of reciprocal transformation.
It is thus somewhat dangerous to speak of s¢va¢a at all. It is

A. 6. 322» 2 . 139

true, no doubt, that each of the four bodies tends to move towards,
and to stay in, its own proper region: but there is a continuous
interchange of matter from region to region. The sublunary world,
we must remember, is the proper sphere of yéveows and Oopd.
The four simple bodies are for ever coming-to-be out of, and
passing-away into, one another: and it is primarily in virtue of
this unbroken cycle of reciprocal transformations that they con-
stitute and maintain the structure of the sublunary world.

A full account of Aristotle’s theory would involve a close ex-
amination of his statements concerning ‘the twofold exhalation’
(durAq dvaOvpiacis), which plays a central part in the interchanges
of the simple bodies constituting the Lower Cosmos (cf. AZezeor.
e.g. 3415 ff, with Alexanders commentary: Gilbert, e.g.
pp. 460 ff.). But, for our present purpose, the following brief
indications must suffice. The earth, owing to the heat of the sun,
gives off a twofold exhalation, which is partly of-mois¢ and partly
hot—dry. ‘The hot-moist exhalation (drpis, arp.dadns dvabvplacis) is
drawn from the water on the surface of the earth. It is—
Aristotle says in one passage (Meteor. 360% 21-27)—‘in its own
nature cold, like water before it has been heated’: and it retains
a watery character throughout (it is duvayet ofov ddwp). We must
conceive it as a kind of mist or aqueous vapour: water in process
of transition to air, or air still capable of reverting to water.
The simple body, which Aristotle usually calls ‘air’, is a hot-
moist body, formed in part from the moisture in the érpés and in
part from the heat in the other exhalation (cf. * 312 24). This
other exhalation (rvevparwdys or KamTVoons dvaOupiacts, or some-
times par excellence dvaOvpiacis simply) is a hot-dry vapour drawn
by the sun ‘ from the earth itself’, and not from the water on the
earth’s surface. (On this puzzling exhalation, see Gilbert,
pp. 465 ff.) Aristotle speaks of it as duvayer otov wdp, and con-
ceives it as rising above the drpis owing to its greater lightness.
Hence above the ‘ air’—i.e. above the region where the drpis
predominates, and where clouds are formed—there comes-to-be
a simple body, which Aristotle usually calls ‘fire’. In reality it is
a hot—dry body, constituted by the rvevparadys advabvpiacis. It is
a highly-inflammable stuff (ofov iaéxxavya), of which fire proper
is an intensification: cf. Meteor. 340” 21-23, * 30% 25-30, * 31>
24-26. Aristotle explains ‘shooting stars’ and ‘meteors’ (and
even the light and heat of the stars and planets, cf. Introd. p. xxxv,),
as the bursting into flame of parts of this combustible stuff, owing

140 COMMENTARY

to the friction produced in it by the movement of the conterminous
sphere of the aetherial Cosmos (cf. AZeceor. 341» 1 ff.).

22> 3-4. kal... éotw. This is the second of the questions
(to be discussed in the second book) concerning Earth, Air, Fire,
and Water. Aristotle’s own view is that ‘they all come-to-be in
the same manner, reciprocally out of one another’; though he
thinks that there is a certain cyclical order in which their trans-
formation is most easily and naturally effected. But various
philosophers had selected one or other of these four bodies as
primary and eternal, i.e. as the original stuff out of which every-
thing else came-to-be and into which everything else passed-away.
Thus, e.g., Thales had selected ‘Water’, Anaximenes and Diogenes
of Apollonia ‘ Air’, and Herakleitos ‘ Fire’.

22> 6-9. mdvtes ... capds. All the p/uratst philosophers—
viz. (a) those who (like Anaxagoras, Leukippos, Demokritos, and
Plato) regard Earth, Air, Fire, and Water as derivative, and trace
them (as well as the composite bodies) to prior ‘reals’ as their
constituents, and (b) those who (like Empedokles) regard Earth,
Air, Fire, and Water as genuine ‘ elements’, i. e. as underivative,
and derive the composite bodies from them—employ, in their
‘derivations’, association and dissociation, and action and passion.
And by ‘association’ they mean combination.

(Cf. 29%1-5. For Empedokles, cf. 14> 7-8, 15% 23-25; for
Anaxagoras, * 1413-15, 14224-— 1; for Leukippos and Demo-
kritos, *149 21-24, 156-15, *15>33—16®2; for Plato,
* 15° 29-33, 15> 28—16 4.)

22> 9-11. GAG... mdoxovtos. ‘But, again, there cannot be
Altering, any more than there can be Dissociating and Associating,
without an Agent and a Patient.’

Aristotle has just shown that all pluralist philosophies must
employ combination and action—passion. He had also argued
(cf. *14* 6—» 8) that-all monistic theories must identify yéveous
with dAXolwors. He now maintains that adAoiwors necessarily
involves action—passion, so that the monists (as well as the
pluralists) must employ action—passion.

22>12. kai Tots, sc. yevv®ow. The emphasis is on this clause :
for Aristotle’s point is that the monists, no less than the pluralists,
are forced to employ zroéyots, 1.e. woveiv kal maoxev. The variant
kairo. is a stupid correction due to misunderstanding.

22>13-21. xat...éoriv. Diogenes of Apollonia (cf. fr. 2 ;
Diels, p. 334) argued that ‘all things are derived from one, because

A. 6, 322° 3-32 141

otherwise reciprocal action-passion could not have occurred’.
In this he was so far right, that all things detween which reciprocal
action—passion occurs must’be derived from one: but he was
wrong in supposing that a// things are transformations of a single
substratum (® 20 rotra). Between the otpavds and the things
of the Lower Cosmos, e.g., there is no reciprocal action-
passion.

22> 18-19. dvdyxy ... dow: ‘that which underlies them
must be a single something.’ For this use of vous, cf. Phys.
19128, Bonitz, Jud. 838° 8 ff.

22> 25. mpatov. Philoponos takes zpérov with dwapeva, but the
aorist alone is sufficient. Perhaps the meaning is ‘things can-
not combine a/ a//—combination is utterly impossible—unless they
have come into.a certain kind of contact’.

22528. rourots, sc. dvdyxn civar GAAnAWY amTLKOTs.

22>29. 8d... apis. According to the definition of contact
in the Physics (cf. 226523, 231° 18 ff.; *16>4), which is pre-
supposed throughout the present passage, there is contact when
the ‘extremes’ of any two things are ‘together’, viz. are in the
same immediately-continent place. |

But contact thus defined is manifested by ra paOnyarixa as well
as by ra dvorxa: the things, whose extremes are together, need
not be ‘perceptible bodies’, but might equally well be
mathematical solids, surfaces, or lines.

Hence, since Aristotle’s object eve is to determine the con-
ditions of contact between dvoid cdpara (cf. 23°34 ays THs ev
rois gvorxois), the definition of the Physics requires further
specification : see * 22> 32—23% 34.

22> 29-32. oxeddv... apis. ‘Now every term which possesses
a variety of meanings includes those various meanings esther
owing to a mere coincidence of language, ov owing to a real
order of derivation in the different things to which it is
applied. This may be taken to hold of Contact as of all such
terms.’ |

Aristotle assumes that é¢7 is a term with many meanings, and
urges that therefore (like all such terms) it includes its many
meanings either (1) by a mere linguistic accident or (2) because
of a real affiliation, viz. because the different ¢hinmgs meant all
derive from, or all contribute to, one and the same primary ¢hing
meant,

The stress is on aozep (® 30), which is answered by ovrws...

[42 COMMENTARY

djs (> 32): and the precise meaning of éozep is explained in the
clause kal... mporépwv ( 31-32). In other words, the: corre-
spondence between dy and every other term with many
meanings lies iz the manner in which the term possesses its
variety of significance, viz. that the variety must be connected in
one of two different ways.

For the well-known Aristotelian distinction between (i) Ta ka
év Neyopeva (i.e. Ta ovvevuypa) and (ii) Ta moAAaxHs deydpeva,
including (a) rd dpovijpws Aeysueva and (b) r& rpds ev kal play Twa
diow Aeyopeva (or ta ad Evds Aeydpeva), cf. e.g. Metaph.
1003 33 —> 19, 10048 21-31, Lith. Vic. 1096 26-29.

As a rule it is not the /erms, but the different ¢hings denoted
by the terms, which are said AéyeoOar ovvwvipws, or A€yer Oar
TodAaxGs (Suwvtpws, OF mpds &v Kat ap évds). But, if the text of
the present passage is right, ra pev and ra dé (© 31) must mean
‘some of the évopnara’, ‘others of the édvéuara’.. And, if so, it is
strange that Aristotle should not have expressly stated that some
of these évéuatra with many meanings fall under both headings.
That is the case, e. g., with doy. For (i) it isa mere accident of
language that dwreoOar is applied to ‘the man who grieves us’
(cf. 23® 32-33) as well as to ‘two bodies, the extremes of which
are together’. On the other“hand (ii) the different meanings of
drreoOar as applied (a) to ra yewperpixd, (b) to the physical bodies
in the sublunary world, and (c) to the oépavds in its relation to
the uppermost stratum of the Lower Barrie have a genuine
logical affiliation.

For the idiomatic use of cyeddv in » 29 en affirmantis,
cf. isws ’), see Bonitz, Zmd. s.v. The concessive pév ody is answered
by duos d€ (> 32).

22> 32-23% 34. Suws...tpdmov. Contact in the strict sense,
from which all its other senses. (except those due to a mere
linguistic coincidence) derive, applies only to ‘things which have
position’. But in order to ‘have position’ a thing must be ‘in
place’, i.e. must be a body with magnitude. And a body which
is ‘in place’ must be heavy or light. Finally, bodies, which are
heavy or light, are wa@ytixa Kai mountixd. Hence the full
definition of con¢act, in the strict and primary sense, restricts the
term to reciprocal contact of dvoixa odpatra: things which ‘touch’,
in the strictest sense, must be such that ‘they are able to move,
and be moved by, one another so that there is action—passion
between them ’ (cf. * 23% 22-25).

A. 6, 3226 29—323 3 143

But (i) there is contact, in a wider and less strict sense, which
is not reciprocal. Thus the otpavds moves the Lower Cosmos,
and the latter is moved by it. But this moving and being-moved
are. not reciprocal action—passion : i.e. the odpavds is not moved
by the Lower Cosmos, nor does the latter move it (cf. * 23% 12-22).
Hence, though the otpavds ‘touches’ the Lower Cosmos (since
the remaining conditions of contact are fulfilled), the a¢y is not
reciprocal. And (ii) we apply the term ‘ contact’ in a still looser
and more derivative sense to ra pabnparixd (geometrical solids,
surfaces, and lines). It is not really ra pabnpatixd as such—not
the mathematical adstracta—which ‘touch’: for they are not ‘in
place’. They are only ‘in place’ gua inseparable characters of
the dvoid cwpara: and it is only so far—only in virtue of the
bodies to which they are adjectival—that they can be said to
‘touch’ (cf. * 208 34 — 2, * 20b 3-5, * 20h 14-16).

22> 33—237 3. Odo1s...tpdmov. Aristotle here (and below,
23°6) restricts O¢o1s to the things which are ‘in place’, i.e. to
Kwyta copata. Yet Oéous is attributed to the pabyparixd (e. g. to
the point, cf. * 208 34 —) 2), and they are said to ‘touch’. Hence
Aristotle finds it necessary to dispose of this apparent exception
to his doctrine that only things, which are ‘in place’, can ‘ have
position ’ and ‘touch’. Now Aristotle believed that there were
in the physical Cosmos a real, or absolute, ‘ Above’ and ‘ Below’:
and that e.g. each of the four simple bodies had its ‘ proper
place ’ and its absolute position in the sublunary world (cf. Introd.
§ ro, *22b2-3, * 2386-8). The @Oéous, of which he is here
speaking, is absolute position—i. e. position relative to the real
‘Above’ and ‘ Below’ (cf. 2386-8). And, 7 this sense, only
things which are ‘in place’—only the dvoixa ocopara—can have
‘ position ’. :

In what -sense, then, can the mathematical things be said to
‘have position’ and to ‘touch’? (i) As we saw in the preceding
note, the quantitative determinations of things exist as adjectives
of dvoid odpara which are ‘in place’, ‘have position’, and
‘touch’: and they may be regarded as sharing in the @éous and
doy, which primarily belong to the @vo.xda cwpara, in so far as
they share also in their réros. But (ii) the zso/ated quantitative
determinations—the aédstracta which are ra palypatixd proper,
the objects of mathematical science—have a position relative to us
who conceive them, so that we distinguish e.g. the ‘right’ and
‘left’ of a figure (cf. Phys..208% 22-25). They are located by

144 COMMENTARY

the mathematician’s conception in an ¢maginary place: and in
that place they are assigned ‘positions’ relative to one another,
and are capable of ‘contact’. Thus, when @éous is attributed to
the abstract mathematical entities, ‘ place’ is also attributed to
them—not indeed the real place which contains the dvovxa
odépata, but an imaginary extension. For even the abstract
geometrical figures involve an ideal or imaginary extension
(rd ovvexés) as their matter (vont) vAn). This geometrical circle,
e.g., which cuts ¢hat, is a otvodov: it is the form of circle
(circularity) informing ¢His, as distinguished from /¢haf, area or
piece of 7d ovvexés. Cf. e.g. Metaph. 1036%2-12, 1036 32—
1037" 5.

2392-3. eit ...tpdmov. The mathematical things can be said
to ¢ouch only in the sense in which they can be said to be zz place.
This applies, whether they have an independent existence (as e. g.
Plato wrongly supposed), or whether they ‘are’ in some other
fashion (e. g. as inseparable adjectives of the dvoid odpara, or as
abstracted objects of thought).

For kexwpiopevov (herve equivalent to ‘separate from perceptible
body’), cf. e. g. * 208 31-34. Zabarella, however, perhaps rightly
supposes Aristotle to mean ‘whether by ra paOnpatixd we
understand ¢he abstracted forms of which the mathematician treats,
or the quantitative characters of the perceptible things’.

23% 3. mpdtepov. The reference is to the Physics: cf. * 22> 29.

-23°5. Sunpnpéva. The manuscripts and Philoponos all read
duwpicpeva. It is true that tooov Siwpirpeévov 1s contrasted with
roaov avvexes (Cat. 4 20-25): but it is clear from the context that
the antithesis seve is between Discrete Quanta (e. g. Number) and
Continuous Quanta (e. g. Figure). The term dvwpirpévoy does not
appear to be used in the sense here required, viz. to mark the
distinction between two separate, but contiguous, peyéy and
a single continuous péyeos. It would no doubt be possible to
defend Swwpirpéva by passages like de Caelo 275» 30 (dwpicpeva
7@ xevo) and Phys. 213° 24 (76 Kevov, 0 diopie: ras dvs): but in
view of 23% 11 I have ventured to read duppypeva. here.

2396-8. témou... dvtikemsévwr. The primary differentiation
of place (xparn Siabopa térov) distinguishes it into (a) she Above
(the periphery of the Lower Cosmos)—the region of the absolutely
light body, ‘ Fire’: (b) the Below (the centre)—the region of the
absolutely heavy body, Earth: (c) the relatively Upper and Lower
(ra rowtra tov dvTiKeywevwv)—the regions of the relatively light

A. 6. 323% 2-8 145

and relatively heavy bodies, Air and Water. Cf. de Caelo 308%
14-33, 3119 15 ff.: Introd. § ro, * 22> 2-3.

But in some passages (cf. de Caelo 284> 6—286% 2; de Anim.
Incessu 704” 12-22, 705% 26 ff.) Aristotle develops a more elabo-
rate doctrine with regard to the dimensions of ‘place’ and
the distinctions of place within the Cosmos :—

(i) In any body regarded as filling a place, or in the place
containing any body, we must distinguish three dimensions,
Length, Breadth, and Depth. Each dimension is the interval
between a pair of opposites, viz. Above and Below (Top and
Bottom), Before and Behind (Front and Back), Right and Left.
One opposite in each pair is the ‘ origin’ (dpy7) of the dimension
in question, and is therefore ‘prior’ to the other: thus Above
is prior to Below, Before prior to Behind, and Right prior to
Left. And since length is the most fundamental of the three
dimensions (for line can be conceived in abstraction from surface
and solid, but not vice versa), the differentiation of place into
Above and Below is the zparn diapopa rozov.

(ii) We may call this the schematic significance of the
differentiation of place. But Aristotle thinks that the ground of
these differences in place lies in the xwyces of living bodies: i. e.
he maintains that their primary significance is functional. In all
living things, te Adove is that part of the body whence the food
is distributed, i.e. whence avfnors originates. In animals, therefore,
‘the top’ is the head or mouth: in plants, it is the roots. In
animals, “ke Before is the region upon which their aic@yors is
directed (that which is zz front of them), or that part of the
animal’s body whence its aio@yois proceeds (the front of the
animal). And in animals which move from place to place, the
Right (as Aristotle labours not very successfully to prove) is that
part of the animal’s body from which its locomotion originates.
Since all living things exhibit avéyous, whilst only some perceive
and move, the distinction of Above and Below, in this functional
as well as in the schematic pense, is the primary differentiation of
the three.

(iii) Now the ovpavos—the physical universe—is Eupuyos Kal
— dyen Kujoews dpynv (de Caelo 285% 29-30). Hence we must ascribe
to it an Above and Below, and a Right and Left, in the functional
sense—as indeed Aristotle attempts to do. He identifies the
South Pole with the Adove, the North Pole with the Below, the
East with the Aight, and the West with the Leff (cf. Heath,

2254 i

146 COMMENTARY

pp. 231-2). It is clear, however, that the intended analogy with the
animals breaks down. For (a) the differentiation into Above and
Below is, in the otpavds, connected with its circular movement,
whereas in the animals it was connected with avéyois: and (b)
the differentiation into Front and Back disappears altogether, for
an obvious reason. For if we attributed aicOyois to the ovpavds,
we should have to say of it, as Xenophanes said of his Oeds, oddAos
dpa, ovAos dé voei, ovAos O€ T AKoveL.

23°9. % dppw % Odtepov. If A and B are in reciprocal contact,
either A must be heavy and B light, or A light and B heavy (7
dudw); or A and B must both be heavy, or both be light
(7 Oarepov).

Or perhaps we should interpret this as applying to the different
G\AnAwv dmroueva severally. For of these Earth is absolutely
heavy and Fire absolutely light: whilst Air and Water are, each
of them, both relatively light and relatively heavy.

23° 9-10. Ta... . Tointika. This is not inconsistent with
29> 20-22, where Aristotle denies that heaviness and lightness
are the source of action—passion (cf. and contrast Baumker,
p. 242,). Earth, Air, Fire, and Water are necessarily heavy
and light, and essentially zouyrixi Kal wafyriuxkd: but their
action and passion are not the effects of their heaviness and
lightness.

23° 12-22. éwet... 00. Aristotle has substituted xwyriuédyv for
rontuav and kxwytav for wabyrixdv (23212): but there is an
ambiguity in both pairs of terms, to which he here calls attention.
For (i) A may ‘move’ B without itself being moved dy ¢he latter :
or (ii) A may ‘move’ B; and, in doing so, be itself moved
by B (®13-14 dAAa...6v. That this is the distinction here
intended, is rightly emphasized by Zabarella and is manifest from
Aristotle’s treatment below, 24% 24ff.). Thus (i) the zpdaros
ovpavos (to take the chief instance which Aristotle here seems
to have in mind), being itself moved by the zpéarov xwodv,
imparts movement to the Lower Cosmos, and is relatively to the
latter axivytos: for the Lower Cosmos does not react upon the
ovpavés. We may speak of the ovtpavds as ‘acting upon’ the
Lower Cosmos, and of the latter as ‘being acted upon’ by it.
But though there is action and passion, and moving and being-
moved, there is no veaction and re-passion in this relation and no
reciprocal being-moved and moving. And though we may speak of
apy, it is not ‘physical contact’ proper. What ‘touches —viz.

A. 6. 323° 9-33 147

the otpavds—is not heavy or light: hence there can be no

reciprocal action—passion between it and the Lower Cosmos, and
therefore the latter cannot ‘touch’ it. But ‘ physical contact’
proper is reciprocal.

On the other hand (ii) the term zovoty 7” the strict sense applies
only to a body which causes a change of waé@os in another body.
The process here is éAAo/wors, and the patient reacts upon the -
agent so that the latter is in turn itself patient. This kind of
kivnows can occur only between bodies which are heavy and light,
or both heavy, or both light (cf. * 23%9)—i. e. between bodies of
the sublunary world. ‘Thus, e.g., the hot body warms the cold
body and, in doing so, is itself cooled dy ‘he later. And this
reciprocal xivyots (i. €. dAXoiwars) presupposes reciprocal contact, or
‘ physical contact ’ proper.

23° 17-20. elwep ... Oepydv: ‘if we are to speak of agenf in
a sense contrasted with patent, and if this’ (rodro, viz. the term
maoxov) ‘is to be applied only to those moved things whose
motion is a qualitative affection—i. e. a quality, such as White or

- Hot, in respect to which they are moved only in the sense that

they are a/tered.’

23° 22-25. GdX’... macxew. The conditions which must be
satisfied by two bodies, if they are to ‘touch’ zz the widest and
most general sense of the term (xafodov pév), are (a) that they
should have @éo1s, and (b) that the one should be «wyrixev and
the other xwyrov. These conditions are satisfied e.g. by the
ovpavos and the Lower Cosmos in their relation to one another.
But if two bodies are to ‘touch one another —i.e. if there
is to be reciprocal contact (contact in the strictest sense) between
them (pds dAAyAa S€, Sc. 6 Svopirpos Tod mpos GAAHAG arrerOa1)—
they must (a) have @éous, and (b) alter and de altered by one another.
(The words év ofs irdpxe 75 roveiv kat 75 wéoxew define the kind —
of kuwyrikov Kat Kwyrdv which reciprocal contact demands.) These
conditions are satisfied only by the bodies of the Lower Cosmos ;
for they alone are capable of an action-passion which is simul.-
taneously a re-passion and reaction. For dvopucpds, cf. *34” 20-30.

23° 25-33. €or... éxeivouv. In almost all the processes which
we observe in the sublunary world that which moves or acts is in
turn moved or acted upon by that which it moves or on which it

acts. Hence we find it difficult to conceive a contact which is

not reciprocal. Nevertheless we do sometimes speak of a ‘mover’
communicating motion by ‘just touching’ (# 29 povov) the moved :
L2

148 COMMENTARY

as, indeed, we speak (metaphorically) of the man who grieves us
as ‘touching’ us, without suggesting that we ‘touch’ him.

If a ‘mover’ communicates motion without being moved by
that which it moves (#31 dxivynrov ov, cf. * 23%12-22), we must
admit a ‘contact’ which is not reciprocal.

237 26. oxedédv. There are exceptions: e.g. (as Philoponos
points out) the épdmevos xuwet without necessarily being ‘ moved ’
in turn by the lover.

23% 30. dpoyevq. For the form, see Bonitz, Zvd. 510% 10-11.
The meaning of ra dnoyev7 here is explained below, 23 29—24° 5.

23°34. Tijs év Tots uarkots, i.e. as contrasted with (a) addy
between the mathematical things, and (b) the one-sided addy of
the odpavds and the Lower Cosmos: cf. * 22 29.

A. 7 AN EN

23> 124 24. wept... tpdmov. In this chapter, which together
with the next two chapters explains zrovety—rdoxew (cf. * 22 1-26),
Aristotle discusses and answers the question ‘ What kind of things
can act and suffer action reciprocally ?’

He begins (23> 1-15) by quoting two apparently conflicting
views, together with the arguments of their advocates. The first
view—that Like cannot be affected by Like, i. e. that only Unlikes
or Differents can act and suffer action reciprocally—he attributes
to the majority of his predecessors. The second view—that what
acts and suffers action must be Like, i, e. Identical—he ascribes
to Demokritos. Next (23> 15—24® 9) he develops his own view
by a criticism of his predecessors. The true doctrine is :—‘ What
acts and suffers action reciprocally must be contrasted species
within the same gewus, or contrary forms of the same matter’.
The views of his predecessors (he urges) each mistook a part
of the truth for the whole. Each expressed an essential ‘ moment’
of the truth ; but since each claimed to express the whole, each
became false and conflicted with the other. He then (24% 9-24)
confirms his own theory (a) by showing that it explains the fact
that the agent assimilates the patient to itself, and (b) by tracing
the origin of the rival—and mistaken—theories. Whereas what
acts and suffers action must be contrary determinations of the same
substratum, linguistic usage attributes action and passion now to
the substratum and now to the contraries; and the false theories
arose from exclusive attention to the one or the other of these
subjects, of which action and passion are commonly predicated. _

A. 6. 323% 26 — 7. 323>7 149

Finally (24% 24-22) Aristotle (a) contrasts primary and
proximate agents, and explains that the primary agent is un-
affected in its action as the first ‘mover’ moves without being
moved : and (b) distinguishes agent from final cause.

23> 2. dmevaytious. This word is repeated below (> 16), but at
> 17 the apparent contrariety is called évavtwoAoyia. Aristotle uses
brevavtiov and évavtiov indifferently, except that izevavriov is
sometimes somewhat wider and vaguer in meaning. ‘Thus,
e.g., in Post. Anal, 76> 32 7d trevavtiov tod pavOdavovtos tH Sdéy
covers the two cases specified in the preceding sentence, viz.
(i) that in which the pupil has no opinion on the subject, and
(ii) that in which the pupil’s opinion is contrary to the thesis
assumed by the teacher.

The two views here in question are in contrary opposition: for
in substance they assert (a) No agents and patients are identical,
and (b) All agents and patients are identical.

* The opposition between two particular propositions conflicting
in quality (‘Some A is B’—‘Some A is not B’), which formal
logicians call suwb-contrary opposition (cf. e.g. Sanderson, Logicae
Artis Compendium, 8th ed., p. 95), is not here in point. More-
over, Aristotle does not call the opposition of particular
affirmative to particular negative an opposition of tevaytia: he
denies that it is Sprteiay more than a verbal opposition (cf.
Prior Anal. 63» 27 76 yap twit od Twi Kata THY Aé~w dvtixerta
povov).

23> 5-6. wdvta... dpotots. Aristotle is ace the authors of
the theory. By ‘like’ they mean ‘absolutely identical’. If A
is ‘like’ B (they argue) A and B have all the same properties and
in the same degree (poiws). Hence there can be no zoveiy—
wanes between A and B. For although in action—passion the
agent dvrimdoxet and the patient dyturove?, one of the two things
concerned in the transaction (viz. the ‘agent’) must be padAov
mountixov, and the other (viz. the ‘patient’) must be p@AdAov
ma0ytikov. |

The qualification éuoiws is important: for if A and B were both
hot, but A were hotter than B, A might act on B. A’s action,
however, according to the theory, would be dué not to its ‘like-
ness’, but to its ‘unlikeness’: cf. > 8-10.

23> 6-7. Ta... mépuxev, 72.5 dvdpora answers 76 pév dporov (> 3-4),
and wépuxev (after ds, > 3) is necessary, though redvxévar is the
better-attested reading. In.» 7 and» 14 FL add éis after tacyew:

150 ~ COMMENTARY

but the accusative alone is more idiomatic. oveiy kat mdoxew is

treated as a single verb with the same construction as if zroveiv |

stood alone: cf. also * 24» 25.

23> 7-10. kai... ddjiyw. Cf. Parva Naturalia 469» 21—470* 7 ;
Theophr. fr. 3 (rept zupds) § 1 70 8@ wip yervav Kai POeipew répuxev
abt, yevvay pev TO eAarTov TO wheéov, pbcipe 5é 76 wA€ov TO EAaTTOV.
Aristotle’s theory of the cause of Death seems to depend in part
on an application of this principle (that ‘the greater fire destroys
the less’): cf. * 29> 24-26.

23° 10-11. Anpdxpitos . . . pdvos. It is strange that Aristotle
should attribute this view to Demokritos alone: for in discussing
the theory of Empedokles that ‘ Like perceives Like’, he treats
it as an application to the relation of Percipient and Perceived of
the general principle that ‘ Agent and patient are like’. ~ Cf. de
Anima, e.g. 409° 23 ff., 416” 33 ff., where there is a reference to
the present discussion of action-passion. |

Both views are attributed to groups of thinkers, below, 24%
22-24.

23° 16-17. éoikact... Méyew. ‘The two views seem to be (but
are not really) in manifest conic: There is, however, no trace
of daiverOa in T or ¢,

23> 17-18. aittoy... éxdtepor. The conflict is only apparent.
For both views express a part of the truth; and they can be
reconciled by being merged in a third view which adequately
expresses the fact as a whole. The ‘fact as a whole’ is contrasted
forms of the same matter acting and suffering action reciprocally,
One view insists upon the identity of the matter, and the other
view upon the contrariety of the forms, as the sole and sufficient
condition of action-passion: cf. * 23% 1—24» 24, 248 14-24.

23 18-24. 73... wav. It is false that ‘ Like is affected by.

Like’, if this means that the identity of A and B is the sole and
sufficient cause of their action—passion. For (i) if A and B are
absolutely identical, neither will have any prerogative in any
_ transaction between them (cf. * 23> 5-6): and (ii) if Like acts on
Like gua like (i. e. identical), everything will be able to ‘act on’
(change, move, destroy) itself, and therefore there will be nothing
apOaprov or axivyrov. But the change and movement in the physical
universe necessarily imply some things which are ép@apra, didia, and
axivnta: cf. Phys. ©. 3 ff., Metaph. 1071” 3 ff.
In b2xr it is necessary to read «i re (cf. Bonitz, Jud. 2179),
instead of cire with Bekker.

oo a a a

A. 7. 323° 7-324 9 151

In > 22 I have accepted ovrws éxévrwy on the authority of L,
though with great hesitation.

23> 24-29. 16... éotiv. The opposite view is also false, if it
means that the absolute otherness of A and B is the sole and
sufficient cause of their action-passion. For to ‘act on’ a thing
is to make it change its nature. But if two things are absolutely
other (e.g. Line and Whiteness), neither can get any grip of the
other, neither can affect the other’s nature. Only Contraries or
Intermediates—1. e. only contrasted forms of the same—can ‘act
on’ one another. ;

23> 26-29. mwhiv... éotiv. A white thing may ‘act on’ a line
which happens to be also black—i. e. it ‘acts on’ the black. It
does not really ‘act on’ the line, for it -does not alter the line’s
nature. The line remains a line, even when its coincident
property, black, has been altered into another coincident property—
e. g. white or grey.
In > 28 the better-attested reading is éavra (i.q. dAAnAa).
Philoponos rightly interprets doa é€ évaytiwy éoriv ( 29) as ra
petagv: cf. 24° 8. The general principle is that ra peragd & Te
TavT® yéver TavTa Kal peTagd evavtiov Kal ovyKeitar ex Tv évavTiov
amavra (Metaph. 1057” 32-34). Thus the different species of the
genus Colour form a scale. The extremes of the scale are White
and Black : and these are évayria to one another, for white is ypaya
_ Svaxpitixov dWews, and black is xpoya ovyKpirixoy dWews (cf. Topics
119% 30, Metaph. 1057" 8-g). The other colours are ék AevKod Kat
peAavos (cf. e. g. Phys. 188» 24), i.e. ‘blends’ of white and black,
and fall on the scale between its extremes. Each intermediate colour
is relatively évavtiov, 1.e. functions as an évavriov relatively to any
other intermediate and to either extreme. The intermediates are
therefore said évavriwow éxew (cf. e. g. 23° Jo-31). Since Aristotle
conceives aic@yois as essentially a dvvapus Kputixy, i.e. a power of
discriminating between évavria, or between the intermediates which
are ‘blends’ of the évavria, the general principle ought to apply to
the field of each of the five senses. Taste, we are told, discriminates
between sweet and bitter; hearing between treble and bass ;
touch between hot and cold, and hard and soft. But it does
not seem possible to work out the conception of a scale in all the
fields with the same precision as in those of colour and sound.

23 29—24%9. GX . . . todrois. The true doctrine is that
action-passion takes place between things which are contrary
forms of the same matter, differentiations of an identical saé-

152 COMMENTARY

stratum, contrasted species within the same genus. Agent and
patient, therefore, are both ‘like’ and ‘unlike’. The result of
action—passion is to assimilate the patient to the agent.

The doctrine is summarized in the de Anima (417% 20) in the
formula waoye. ... Td dvdpouov, terovOds 8 Spoidvy éorw, and it is
applied to Nutrition, Growth, Sensation, and (with modifications)
to Thought. There is a reference to the present passage in the
de Anima 417% 1-2.

Philoponos is right in calling the argument here daAAyAos. All
that Aristotle does is to bring out the reciprocal implication of
contrariety and action—passion. From the fact that contraries
are such as to act and suffer action, he infers that agent and
patient must be different forms of the same (23> 29—24 5): and
from the fact that agent and patient are different forms of the
same, he infers that (only) contraries are such as to act and
suffer action (24% 5-9).

For the form époyeves (24% 1), see * 23 30.

23° 33—24° 3. wépuxe . . . GAMA. This parenthesis is
intended to justify the assertion just made and the inference
drawn from it. It is a law of nature (réfuxe) that 7d époyeves td
Tov époyevovs tacxe.: and the law holds good in all instances of
action—passion precisely because ‘contraries are in every case
within a single identical kind, and it is contraries which re-
ciprocally act and suffer action’.

24° 8-9. Kai yap ...tovros. The argument apparently is :—
Action—Passion necessarily involves dAAoiwous (cf. * 23% 12-22)
which is a form of yéveous Kat $Oopa (it is yéveors kai POopa tis).
Now there can be no yéveois cat pOopa in any sense whatever
except between évoyria: hence zoveiv-racxew is necessarily
between évayria.

24° 9-14. 86... yéveous. Aristotle’s doctrine, combined with
the general principle that yéveo.s is a change into the contrary,
explains the fact that the agent assimilates to itself the patient.

24° 14-15. kal... @doews. ‘And, again, it is intelligible that
the advocates of both views, although their theories are not the
same, are yet in contact with the nature of the facts.’

Kara Adyor, 1. G. evAoyor. , ;

In spite of the overwhelming manuscript authority for dows, duws
is clearly required. For dios (‘the essence of the matter’), cf.
Bonitz, Jud. 839% 43 —» 2.

24° 15-24. éyouev .. . todvavtiov. Cf. * 23> 17-18,

Ag 72 °303P 49--s04b02 153

In * 17 the reading of H (cf. ®¢) is to some extent confirmed
by 7dé\Aa: but ‘the stone’ is not a very likely subject of ‘being
heated ’.

In ® 22 éxeivo is of course 76 ioxeiwevov, and in ® 23 Oarepa are
Ta évavtia, Tovvavtiov (* 24), ‘the opposite’, i.e. that agent and
patient must be absolutely. ‘ other ’.

24° 24 —b22, tov... ddyOds. At least in expression, if not also
in substance, the doctrine of this passage is (i) ambiguous, and
(ii) divergent from Aristotle’s doctrine elsewhere.

(i) Aristotle’s object is to establish a certain parallelism
between zo/yous (i. g. GAAotwors, cf. * 23% 12-22), oretv—racxeu,
TO Towovy, and Kivyots, Kiveiv—Kiveta Oat, TO KLVOdV.

The term 76 «.wotv is applied (a) to that which contains ‘ the
originative source’ (i. e. ¢#e first in the series of causes, 24% 27-28)
of a movement: and also (b) to ‘that which is last’ (in the series
of causes), i.e. to the cause ‘next to the body which is being
moved and to that which is coming: -to-be’ (24% 29 rHv yeverw—
if the text is-sound—must mean 76 yeyvopevor).

Similarly 76 zowdy is applied (a) to that which contains ‘the
originative source’ of a ro/now—e. g. to the doctor, gua containing
in his soul the réyvy iarpuxy which is the first in the series of
causes of the alteration called ‘healing’: and also (b) to ‘ that
which is last’, e.g. to the wine or the food prescribed by
the doctor, which are the proximate causes of the patient’s
recovery.

Now 70 xwodv tm ‘sense (a) need not itself be moved by the
body which it is moving. It is therefore—or it may be—relatzvely
axivytov. The absolutely first moving cause must be ‘ unmoved’
(cf. 24°31 én eviwy d& Kal dvayxaiov) and indeed absolutely
‘unmoved’: but even the zparos ovpavds, although it is itself
moved by the absolutely first mover, is relatively axivytos, since it
e unmoved by the bodies which it sets moving (cf. * 18% 4-5,

* 23% 12-22). On the other hand, 76 xuwodv 27 sense (0) )is, in moving,
always moved by that which it moves. .

Similarly 76 qovotdy tz sense (a) is relatively émabés. The doctor,
e.g., or the réxvy iarpiuxy in his soul, ‘acts upon’ (‘alters’) the
patient, without suffering reaction from (being ‘altered’ by) the
latter. But 7d zovodv éz sezise (6) must, in acting, itself be ‘ altered’
by that on which it acts. The food or the wine, e. g., can only
‘alter’ (i.e. heal) the patient in so far as they are ‘altered’ by
the latter’s digestion.

154 COMMENTARY

Here, then, we have a ve/ative/y first, and therefore a relatively
dmafés, agent corresponding to a relatively first, and a relatively
axivytov, ‘mover’ or efficient cause. And Aristotle explains
(24° 34-35) that iarpuxy, e.g., is dwafés in its action, because
it is not (like e.g. the food) a form embodied in the same matter
which 70 iyiadpevov involves.

But Aristotle proceeds to introduce, without further explanation,
a new division of zouyrixa (agents or ‘active things’) into (a)
those whose forms are zot in matter at all, and (b) those whose
forms are in matter (24> 4-13, cf. > 18-22). The frst kind of
Toujtikad—pure forms, i.e. évépyera. without any dvvapis—are
clearly absolutely axraby and absolutely first agents: and they
correspond to the adso/utely first, and absolute/y unmoved, ‘ mover’
or ‘movers’. The second kind of zowyrixa would include not only
‘the food’, but also ‘the doctor’—and perhaps even the réyvy
iarpucy (cf. * 24%34-1). Such zountixad, because they involve
matter, are always mabyteKd, though some of them (e. g. the doctor)
are relatively away since they are not subject to reaction from
the things on which they act. )

(ii) Elsewhere, when Aristotle is analysing xivyots and zoiyons,
the final cause is regarded as the apy7 THs Kkwyoews—as the first
in the series of moving or acting causes. Thus God is the zpérov
xwovv as the ultimate object of love (cf. e.g. Metaph. 1072" 3).
And though what moves the animal is the soul gua containing
vovs Or dpegis (7d dpexrixdv), yet vods and dpegéis are themselves
moved by 76 vonrov and 76 dpextov :—i. e. the primary cause of the
animal’s movement is that which it conceives or imagines as 76
mpaxtov ayabdv, and which, as thus conceived or imagined, inspires
desire (cf. de Anima 433% 9-30, > 11-12; de Motu Anim. 700» 4 fiz
Metaph. 1072" 19-11). Similarly tyfeua—the End at which the
doctor aims—is prior to iarpixy as the cause of healing (cf. Metaph.
1032° 32 ff., * 205 18-21).

Here, however, Aristotle refuses to reckon the final cause
as mrontiKov, except in a metaphorical sense, for a reason explained
below, 24> 14-18.

24° 27. dpxn: cf. * 29% 5.

24° 30-33. Td... dmabds. Since év pev xuyoe (* 31) corre-
sponds to ézi d€ zoujoews (* 32), the passage would be simplified
grammatically by E’s omission of xwodv (#30). But the. better-
' attested text is probably right.
24* 31. éviwy. The reference here and below (> 21 &a rovadra)

A. 7. 324% 27— 518 155

is no doubt to ‘the heavenly Intelligences’, God and the sa
of the Stars: cf. e.g. Metaph. 1073 23 ff.

24°34-— 51. doa. . . bytaLopévouv. We should have expected
Aristotle to cite ¢he doctor, rather than iatpixy, as an instance of
a motikdv Whose matter is not ¢he same as that of its patient:
iarpuxy, We might suppose, is a zontiuxov whose ‘form is not in
matter a/ a//’ (cf.> 4-5). It must, however, be remembered that
Health—the ‘form’, of which iarpixy is the analysis and resynthesis
(cf. * 20 18-21)—is an ecidos évvAov, and cannot be defined with-
out including in its definition those material constituents of which
it is the proportionate adjustment.

24> 4. dmrépevov: cf. * 23% 12-22,

24> 6-g. rhv... Seppaiveobar. ‘For we maintain that one and
the same matter is eguadly,so to say, the basis of either of the -
two opposed things—being as it were a kind of which they are
contrasted species; and that ¢hat which can be hot must be
made hot, provided the heating agent is there, i. e. comes near.’

Thus the food (or wine), which cools (or heats) the patient’s
body, must be itself heated (or cooled) in acting, because it and
the patient’s body are contrasted forms of the same tzroxe(pevov.

as eizeiy (© 6) qualifies éu0/ws. The food and the patient’s body
can be said to have the same matter egua//y or alike only in a loose
sense : just as it is only loosely that e.g. dog and bird are dpoiws
C@ov. :
24> 13-18. gor. . . . maQntixdy. Aristotle briefly justifies the
separation of efficient cause and final cause (cf. * 24% 24-22),
and indicates the part played in zofyo.s by formal and material
causes.

The final cause of a zofyows is an ‘established state’ of ro
macxov, in which it is completely itself. The final cause of
healing,-e. g., is health, which is the normal state or ‘form’ of the
living body. So far as health zs ¢here, the body is already com-
pictely itself—there is no further goal for it to attain (617 ovxére
yiverat, GAN Extw 750).

We can speak of a cause as wo.ytixovy, only when it is such
that its presence starts its correlative réocyov on a process of
development, or coming-to-be. Thus, when the doctor zs there—
i.e. comes into active relation with his correlative wacyxov, a
diseased body—a yeveois is at once set up in the patient’s body,
in which it moves towards the attainment of its normal state,
health.

156 COMMENTARY

24b15-16. tod... bmdpxy. The object of this irregular con-
struction is to avoid the awkwardness of rod pév zowidvros trap-
XOVTOS.

24>18. 4... wadytixdv. It is matter, gva matter, which is
mabytiov: i.e. matter (or the material cause) contributes to
moins, in so far as every wowdy implies a correlative zacxor.
It follows from this—as Aristotle has already maintained—that
if any rounrixdv is itself absolutely without matter, it must be
absolutely dzabés (24> 18-22).

A. 8

24) 25—26) 28. mas... xwpiecAa. Two typical theories of |

the mechanism of zrovetv—7acyew are examined in this chapter: viz.
(i) the theory that the agent acts by penetration, since the patient
has ‘pores’, and (ii) the theory of Leukippos and Demokritos,
which explains action—passion, as it explains all other physical
phenomena (e.g. growth, coming-to-be, passing-away), by the
assumption of Indivisible Solids and a Void.

Of the advocates of ‘pores’, Aristotle mentions only
Empedokles: but one other representative of the doctrine, who
was probably its originator, can be named with certainty, viz.
Alkmaion of Kroton. (On Alkmaion see Diels, pp. too—104 ;
Burnet, § 96; Beare, pp. 11 ff., 93 ff., 131 ff., 160.) -

In the first part of the chapter (24> 25—25 11) Aristotle shows
that the theory of pores is equivalent to that of the Atomists, so
far as an explanation of zoveiv-racyewv is concerned. He also
traces the affiliation of Atomism to Eleatic Monism, and points
out the superiority of the former. ext (25> 12—26? 6) he begins
to criticize Empedokles, contrasting his theory unfavourably with
that of the Atomists. The latter expldin the yéveous and Popa
of all physical bodies as a composition out of, and a dissolution
into, the Indivisible Solids. But Empedokles treats Air, Earth,
Fire, and Water as edementary: and hence neither explains nor
could explain the yéveo.s or @Oopa of the big masses of these
‘elements’ which we see in nature. This leads Aristotle to refer
to Plato’s theory in the Zmaeus, which postulates Indivisible
Planes as the ultimate constituents of Air, Earth, Fire, and
Water, and therefore of all physical bodies. Having distinguished
this theory from that of Leukippos (for Leukippos postulates
a Void, which Plato denies ; and 47s Indivisibles are solids, whereas
those of Plato are planes), he proceeds to criticize the view of

” A. 7. 324615 — 8. 324632 157

Leukippos and Demokritos. Fixa/ly (26> 6-28) he returns to the
doctrine of pores, which he subjects to an annihilating criticism.

24525. mas . . . Aéywper. In the last chapter Aristotle has
explained ‘ what action and passion are, what things exhibit them,
why they do so, and in what manner’ (24> 22-24).

The ‘next step’ in the inquiry (wddw: cf. e.g. Phys. 214) 13;
Bonitz, Znd. 559° 13 ff.) is to explain how it is possible for action—
passion, thus understood, to occur: i. e. what must be the structure
of bodies, if action—passion is to take place.

TovTo, SC. Td Tovey Kal mdoxev, which is treated as a single
verb, cf.* 23> 6-7.

2427. toi ...Kkupwwtdtou. . In the strictest sense of the term
movetv occurs Only in dAAotwous, i.e. action—passion involves
re-passion-reaction. Since it is only the Zast (or proximate)
agent whose action is re-passion, the last agent is ‘the agent
in the strictest sense’ (xupwrarov). Cf. * 23% 12-22, * 248 24-
b 22,

Perhaps we ought to insert (rod) before éoxarov.

24> 27-32. kal todrov .. . paddov. The chief evidence for
Alkmaion’s theory of perception is Theophrastos, de Sensu, §§ 25, 26
(quoted by Diels, p. 101: cf. Beare, ll. cc.). All that we are there
told about ‘ pores’ is that (according to Alkmaion) ‘all our per-
ceptions are in some way closely connected with the brain. That
is why, if the brain is disturbed or displaced, the perceptions are
mutilated and arrested (xnpotcar): for the brain then blocks the
pores etOuEe which the perceptions come eee eeen yap Tovs
mopovs, du dv ai aicOyoess).

The theory of Empedokles is reported at length, and criticized
in detail, by Theophrastos, de Sensu, §§ 7-24 (Diels, pp. 168-171).
See also two fragments of Empedokles, fr. 84 on Vision (Diels,
pp. 196-7: cf. Beare, pp. 14 ff.), and fr. 99 on Hearing (Diels,
p. 200: cf. Beare, pp. 95 ff.). :

Theophrastos, l. c., § 7 (cf. Beare, pp. 204-5) reports that ‘ Empe-
dokles explains the perception of all the special senses on the
same principle. He says that we perceive, because the objects
of each sense fit into the pores of the sense in question. That
is why one sense cannot discern the objects of another: for its
pores are too wide or too narrow, so that, of the objects of the
other senses, some go right through the pores without touching,
whilst others cannot enter at all’. The objects, which fit (or fail
to fit) the pores, are clearly the ‘ effluences’ (dmroppoa/) which all

158. COMMENTARY .

things give off: cf. Empedokles, fr. 89 (Diels, p. 197), Theophrastos,
l. c., pépecOar Sé ra ypwpara mpos tiv dw 8.6. THY droppony.

The first part of Aristotle’s statement here (» 27-29 kai totrov

. wdoas) refers to a theory of this kind. But the second part
(> 29-32 ér ... paddov) refers to a theory which explains the
greater or less transparency of different bodies by theit possession
of a greater or smaller number of pores and by the way in which
their pores are disposed. We can see things through air and water,
and in general through transparent bodies, because such bodies
have a multitude of close-set pores, which are arranged serially
so as to form straight channels or passages right through them.
Does this mean that the ‘ effluences, from the visible objects can
travel more easily through bodies with such.a structure? Or does
it mean—as Philoponos (p. 153),interprets—that the ders (i. e. the
‘visual flames’ or ‘rays’ proceeding from the eyes) can pass
through such media and thus ‘lay hold’ of the visible objects ?

On the whole, it would seem most probable that Philoponos is
right ; and that Aristotle is referring to a feature in Empedokles’
theory of Vision which nobody has yet succeeded in reconciling
with the doctrine of ‘effluences’. For, as is well-known, nothing
is said in Empedokles’ fragment on Vision (fr. 84: cf. also Plato,
Timaeus, 45 b ff.) about ‘effluences’ fitting into the pores of the
sense of vision. Vision is conceived as an activity proceeding
from the eye. ‘The fire inside the eye flows through the pores
of the membranes which contain it, much as the light inside a
lantern ‘leaps through’ its transparent sides (cf. Burnet, pp. 248-
249; Beare, pp. 15-16).

Aristotle himself complains (de Sensu 437 23—4384 5) that
Empedokles ‘sometimes appears to think that we see owing to
the light going forth from the eyes’, whilst at other times he
explains vision ‘ by the effluences from the things seen ’.

24> 32—25°2, of ... €otiv. The advocates of pores are con-

trasted unfavourably with the Atomists. For the theory of pores
is a theory of the structure of some voix copara only (» 32
éxi two), Viz. only of 7& rowtvra Kai rdoxovra and of r& pryvipeva.
Hence it attempts to explain only zoveiv-rdoyew and pikis.
But Atomism is based upon principles which go to the root of
things: for the Atomists postulate that all the perceptible bodies
in nature are composed of Indivisible Solids interspaced by Voids.

Hence their theory applies to the structure of aM dvouKa odpara

(>35-—* 1 wepi rdvrwy), and enables them to give a systematic and

Se VA As in
=u wt

A. 8. 324> 32—32596 159

consistent explanation of yéveors and ¢Oopa, of dAdolwors and
avénots, as well as of Pit ae a and piéis: cf. 15% 34-35,
16% 6-8.

In > 34 Prantl and Diels adopt hiner (JL). But there is no
reason to suppose that Empedokles was the only advocate of
pores who applied the theory to explain pééis: and though the
construction with dacw is a little harsh, itis not impossible.

25° I-2. dpxiv . .. éoriv. Apparently this means that the
Atomists ‘ took as their starting-point what naturally comes first’,
i.e. based their theory on postulates expressing fundamental facts.
They began at the beginning, and not in the middle. But,
in view of the immediately following passage (25% 2 évious yop .. -
b 5 orepedv), in which Aristotle traces the affiliation of Atomism to
the theory of the Eleatics, it is tempting to read xara hvow, fyrep
éatw. The words would then refer directly to Parmenides (cf. e. g.
fr. 8, 1. 1, Diels, p. 118, podvos & ere pdO0s ddot0 Aeirerat ws eorw) and
would mean that the Atomists’ theory is not based upon mere
dd€ar Bporevor, but upon a principle drawn from the Parmenidean
‘Way of Truth’. They took as their starting-point the funda-
mental truth that the Real zs.

25° 2-16. éviou . . . Kevor, Avistedle here sketches certain
arguments which led the Eleatics (éviow: the reference, as we
shall see, is probably to Zeno, and certainly to Melissos, as well
as to Parmenides) to maintain that ‘what is’ must be év kai
axkivytov.

The general form of the arguments is ‘dialectical’, i.e. the
Eleatics show that their pluralist opponents cannot, on their own
premisses, render intelligible the plurality and the motion which
they advocate.

The pluralist views in question are two, ‘viz. (i) that the real is
Many and in no sense One, the Many being separated from one
another by the Void: and (ii) that the real is ‘ discretes-in-
contact’, i.e. a Maney not interspaced by a Void, but con-
tiguous.

The advocates of the first view were, in all probability, the
Pythagoreans (cf. * 258 4-6): and the Eleatics claim to dispose
of it, because—as they maintain—there can be no such thing as
a Void. The second view is that of Empedokles: and the Eleatics
urge against it, that it is no more able than the Pythagorean
theory to render plurality and motion intelligible (cf. * 25% 6-13).

25? 4-6. kwnOivar . . . Sretpyovtos. These theses as to the

160 | COMMENTARY

implications of motion and plurality, which the Eleatics accept,
are at the same time maintained by their opponents: and the
opponents” theory, which rests upon them, is summarized below
(* 7-8) in the words woAAG kai py ev elvar Kai Kevov. The op-
ponents in question cannot be the Atomists: for Atomism (cf.
25° 23 ff.) was developed under the influence of, and subsequently to,
the Eleatic criticism of this particular theory of a Many and
a Void. On the whole, there is very little doubt that the
pluralists in question here, and in the second part of Parmenides’
poem (cf. Burnet, pp. 182 ff., 314 ff.), are the Pythagoreans.

The admitted theses are: (i) if a body is to move, there must
be an empty place for it to move into. Motion implies an
independently existent empty place or ‘void’ (#5 Kxexwpicpévov).
If there is to be motion, it is not enough that we can z” thought
abstract the place, which a body fills, from the body which fills
it (cf. Aristotle’s discussion of 76 xevév, Phys. 213% 12 ff.) : and
(ii) a plurality of reals implies something other than the reals
(a not-real) to separate them from one another. Thus, e.g., the
Pythagoreans postulated a xevov, 6 diopiler tas pices (Phys. 213°
22-27: cf. Burnet, p. 108,).

25° 6-13. todro . . . kivnow. ‘And in ¢his respect’ (i.e. for
rendering intelligible the being of a Many), ‘they insist, the view
that the universe is not continuous, but discretes-in-contact,
is no better than the view that there are Many (and not One) and
a Void. For suppose that the universe is discretes-in-contact.
Then, if it is through-and-through divisible, there is no One, and
therefore no Many either, but the Whole is void ; whilst to main-
tain that it is divisible at some points, but not at others, looks like
an arbitrary fiction. For up to what limit is it divisible? And
for what reason is part of the Whole indivisible, i.e. a plenum,
and part divided? Further, they maintain, it is equally necessary
to deny the existence of motion.’

Aristotle is here reproducing the gist of an Eleatic argument
against a pluralist theory which dispenses with a Void. The
Pythagoreans, as we saw, were obliged to postulate an existent
Void in order to account for motion and plurality : and such
a postulate (Parmenides and Zeno contend) is a contradiction
in terms, for it is equivalent to the assumption that ‘what is not’
‘s. But another form of pluralism (viz. that of Empedokles,
cf. 25" 5-10, * 26> 8-10) attempts to conceive the real as a Many,
without introducing a Void. The Universe is not One, since

A. 8. 325% 6-23 161

it is not continuous :: it is divided into many constituents, which,
however, are. contiguous and therefore do not imply a Void.
Empedokles himself expressed his theory differently. He said
that no part of the Universe was ‘empty’ (cf. fr. 13, 14; Diels,
pp. 176, 177): and he denied that the Whole (i. e. ‘ the Sphere ’)
was homogeneous, as Parmenides had maintained. It was full of
diverse matters—i, e., in the end, full of the four ‘elements’: and
these ‘ran through one another’ (cf. e. g. fr. 17 ; Diels, pp. 177-9).

* Moreover, he had demonstrated that atmospheric air is not empty |

space (not a xevdv), but a thing or body (cf. Burnet, pp. 228, 229) :
hence, although he insists that bodies are porous, the pores are not
‘voids’, but ‘ full’—e. g. full of air, which is itself a body. ,

There is some evidence (Burnet, p. 312,) that Zeno wrote an
attack on Empedokles, and it is possible that the present argu-
ment (# 6-13) reproduces the substance of one of his criticisms.

25° 6. odd3é. EL have pydey, but oddev is what we should expect
consistently with the other negatives in the context. |

25° 7. dawrec8ar Siunpnpevov: cf. perhaps * 16° 4.

25° 12-13. ér . . . klvgow. The addition of ddévar (FHL) is
probably due to a misinterpretation of * 6-8. The argument is :—
The view of Empedokles is no better than the Pythagorean view
as regards the explanation of plurality (26-8), and motion is as
impossible on the former view as it is on the latter (@ 12-13).

25° 15-16. daeipov ... kevov. Parmenides and Zeno maintained
that the one Real was finite: but Melissos held that it was infinite
both temporally and spatially. Aristotle is no doubt quoting, or
summarizing, an actual argument of Melissos. epaiveww should
be taken intransitively, as in Melissos, fr. 5 (Diels, p. 144) ei py
ev ely, mepavel mpos aAXo. :

Translate: ‘Some of them add that it is infinite, since the limit
(if it had one) would be a limit against the Void.’

25°17. wept tHs GdnOeias: cf. Parmenides, e.g. fr. 8, 1. 51
(Diels, p. 121). |

25? 17-23. ér. . . . Siapepew. Though the Eleatic theory
appears to be logically impregnable, it is in violent conflict with
the facts. Even a lunatic does not go so far as the theory
demands in identifying objects which his senses present to him as
different : though some people are mad enough to confuse what
they have been accustomed to regard as honourable with what
really is honourable.

I have marked a Zacuna after aAnOeias in * 17, as I think we must

2254 M

a

162 COMMENTARY

assume that one or more arguments against the Eleatic theory
have dropped out. L reads ézei for ér.—an obvious, but in-
effective, attempt to restore the logic of the passage.

25°23—>5. Aevxummos...ortepedy. Leukippos recognized that
coming-to-be and passing-away, motion and multiplicity, must be
accepted as real on the evidence of sense-perception : but he also
recognized the force of the Eleatic arguments. He was convinced
by the latter that the Real—‘that which is’—is a plenum ; but

he saw no difficulty in postulating empty space (76 kevdv), provided *

it is not regarded as ‘real’ in the proper sense, i. e. in the same
sense as body. Hence he supposed an infinite number of minute
(and therefore invisible) bodies, each ‘real’ in the Sense of the
Eleatic ‘One’, i.e. each a plenum. And he further supposed
these minute bodies—the atoms—to be moving in empty space.
‘Coming-to-be’ he explained as the aggregation of several atoms
to form a perceptible body: and ‘ passing-away ’ as the dissolution
of such an aggregate into its constituent atoms. Cf. above, 15» 6-
15 with the notes. |

25% 23-24. oitwes... A€yovtes. Perhaps this explains 15 9-10
érel 0’ wovto TaANOes ev TO HaiverOar. .. |

25° 26. taita, sc. yéeverw, POopay, kivnow, tAHOos rdv dvTwv.

25% 26-32. tots 8¢. . . P0opdv. For the punctuation, cf. Diels, p.
344. Leukippos conceded to the Eleatics that motion required
a Void: and he says (in agreement with them) that the Void is
py ov and that no part of 76 dv is a pi ov, for 76 dv in the strict
sense of the term is absolutely full, a p/enwm without any gaps.
But he thinks (in contrast to the Eleatics) that there is an infinite
plurality of such ‘ Reals’, and that they move in the’ Void ; for the
Void exists, though it is nota ‘ Real’.

25°33. Tvyxdvovow datépeva. This is the point where
Atomism becomes indistinguishable from the theory of Empedokles
as Aristotle expresses it, viz. that the Real is ‘ discretes-in-contact ’:
cf. * 25% 6-13.

25° 34. kal ouvtiOéueva.. . yervav. Philoponos interprets this”

as a reference to the Atomists’ explanation of dAXoiwois. He
supplies ra wa6y as the object of yervav, and says that we are to
understand the ovv@eo1s and the wepurAoxy of the atoms as their

béors and ragis respectively: cf. 15% 9, 15% 33—16%2. But, asthe

text stands, yevvay can hardly mean anything but yeveow Troveiv, and
the sentence simply repeats 1. 32 with a slight variation. For the
doctrine, cf. * 15> 33—16* 2.

les jp © eee ery

pe a ~

A. Se B25 a7) 25 163

25° 34-36. ek... dddvarov. 1O Kar adnGeav &, sc. an atom,
i.e. that which is a p/éenum without interspaces. 7a adds roAdd,
sc. the many aggregated atoms, which, though associated to
form a perceptible body, never constitute a real One without
interspaces.

For the principle here ascribed to Leukippos, cf. AZetaph.
1039* 7-11, where it is attributed to Demokritos.

25° 36-55. ddX’. .. otepedv. The theory of Alkmaion and
Empedokles, which explained zdaoyew by the hypothesis of pores,
is extended by the Atomists to explain dAAoiwos, POopd, avEnors,
ktA.: Only, instead of ‘pores’, they speak of the Void, i-e.
empty interspaces between the atoms. A perceptible body for
Empedokles is a porous whole: for the Atomists, it is a grouping
of atoms separated by interspaces.

ier Svopévov orepeav (>? 4-5) looks like a quotation from
Leukippos.

25> 5-10. oxedov . . . mépous. We must not suppose that
Hanpedokies would agree. As we know (cf. * 25% 6-13; and

_ below, * 26 8-10), he did not admit a Void, but insisted that the

pores were ‘ full’.

25> 7. toito, Sc. To ravTy Topous TuVvEXEts €ivat.

25°10. ols... mépous. The word zodpo does not occur in this
sense in the surviving fragments of Empedokles. We have instead
e.g. xoava (fr. 84, 1. 9; Diels, p. 197), dAoxes (fr. 100, 1. 3; Diels,
p. 200), the meaning being fixed by periphrases.

25> 13-15. kat wept... cupBatvov. The Atomists’ explanation
(cf. 25% 31-34) is clear in itself, and it is a fairly consistent conse-
quence of the basal assumptions—that there are indivisible solids
and a ‘ void’—on which their whole philosophy depends.

rovtwv (».13), sc. rv epi Aedkurmov kat Anpudxpitov (Philo-
ponos).

25" I5. ToS . . . HTTOvy SC. Tows epi . Bpemebonhba: arron bp0Ao-
youpeévws mpos Tas adTav Béces paiverar cvpPaivor. -

25> 19-25. “EpmedoxAet . . . MAdtrwv. Empedokles regards the
‘four roots’—Earth, Air, Fire, and Water—as eternal and_un-
changeable: cf. *15%4~-8. But this view, as Burnet (p. 230,)
justly remarks, had been rendered ‘almost unintelligible’ to
Aristotle owing to ‘the criticism of the Pythagoreans and Plato’
(cf. especially Zimaeus 48b). Hence Aristotle, here and above
(1 3 ff.), assumes that Empedokles must have known that the
origin and transformation of his ‘elements ’ required explanation ;

M 2

164 COMMENTARY

and regards it as an inconsistency and a failure of his theory that
-no explanation was offered.

Td gwpevdpevov peyeOos (P22: cf. * 26% 30-31) is the actual mass
of the ‘elements’ as we see them. Empedokles’ ‘ elements’ are
present in masses which are clearly aggregates of smaller pieces:
i.e. they are clearly composite bodies, divisible into simple con-
stituents—not, like the ‘primary bodies’ of the Atomists (cf.
2517-19), ddvaipera.

The reference to the Zimaeus is to 53 ff., where the particles,
of which Earth, Air, Fire, and Water consist, are viewed as solids
reducible to planes whose components belong to one of two types
of triangle (cf. * 15% 29-33). These triangles are the right-angled
isosceles,and the right-angled scalene which is such that its hypo-
tenuse is twice the length of its shorter side: cf. Martin, ii,

pp. 234 ff.
25” 27. 6pev... oxnpaor: cf. * 142 21-24.
25> 28. tov . . . éxaorov. I have ventured to excise these

words, since they would mean that each indivisible solid was
defined by an infinity of figures and each indivisible plane by
a finite number of figures—which is absurd.

wpirpevos, i.e. the two typical triangular figures: see * 25» 19-25.

25> 29-32. éx...pdvov. The best remedy in this passage is,
I think, the excision of dvo0 tpdmo av etev. An alternative would
be to read acolon after dvaxpices (cf. J) and to insert yap after pev
(cE).

25> 31-32. Sid te. . . E€xactov. Both the Void and Contact are
required by the Atomists to explain either yeveous or didKpiots
(pOopa): cf. 25% 31-34. ,

25> 34. év tots mpdtepov Adyors. The reference is to the
de Caelo (cf. Introd. § 11, *14® 1) T. 1, especially 298” 33 ff, T. 7,
and A. 2.

25> 34—26"6. wept . . . Suvdper. Aristotle’s deliberate com-
pression of his present criticism of the Atomic theory within the
limits of ‘a short digression’ (25 36) has somewhat obscured the
logical connexion of his arguments. It is, however, possible
to tgace a single line of thought through the argumentation from
26% 1-24; and thus to exhibit it as a reasoned exposure of the
central weakness of Atomism, i.e. its failure to explain the
relation of the indivisible solids to the qualities which are the
objects of the special senses (cf. * 15>33—16%2: and, for
the meaning of ay, cf. * r9® 8-10). The criticisms in the re-

eee ee eee ee, Ta ee ee

A. 8. 325 273268 24 165

mainder of the passage (26% 24-6) are disconnected, but not
obscure.

25? 36-26% 24. dvaykaioy ... d&varpérors. The argument may
be thus expanded :—

According to the Atomists, the indivisible solids are
characterized by figure alone (cf. *14®21-24). And since,
according to their theory, one body can be ‘acted upon’ by
another only because it consists of Indivisibles interspaced by
Void (i.e. only because the Indivisibles which compose it can
move, shift their relative positions, come into contact with one
another, &c.), the Indivisibles ¢temse/ves cannot be ‘acted upon’.
They are dra67, i.e. they cannot receive any aic@yrov dos.
They are also necessarily unable to ‘act’, i.e. they cannot
produce any zd@os, or any change of dos, in anything else.
For (cf. e. g. 23 29 ff.) if A is to make B hot, or to change B from
cold to hot, A must itself be hot (26% 1-). |

Demokritos, it is true, attributes heat to the spherical
Indivisibles. But if heat is the property of the spherical figure,
it is a paradox not to assign cold to some other figure as its
property (26 3-6). Are we then to suppose that the Atomists
do attribute heat and cold to the Indivisibles, as properties
respectively characterizing the spherical and some other figure?
If so, on what principle are the other qualities excluded? It is
a paradox to deny that the Indivisibles are heavy and light, hard
and soft (262 6-8).

Indeed, Demokritos attributes not only heaviness to them, but
different degrees of heaviness. ‘The larger the mass of the
_Indivisible, the heavier it is’, he says.. But if so, he must admit
that the larger the mass of a spherical Indivisible, the hotter it is
(262 9-11). And this admission is fatal to the thesis which, as we
saw (26% 1-3), the Atomists mus¢ maintain. For if the Indivisibles
differ from one another in degree of heat, they cannot be dza67
(269 11-12). But neither can they be day, if hardness be
attributed to them. For if hardness be attributed to any
Indivisibles, its contrary, softness, must be attributed to other
Indivisibles. It is as paradoxical to attribute hardness but not
softness, as it is to attribute heat but not cold. But softness
means ‘tendency to yield to pressure’: i. e. nothing which is soft
can be drafés (26% 13-14). :

It is paradoxical, as we have seen, to deny to the Indivisibles
all qualities except figure. But it is also paradoxical to attribute

166 COMMENTARY

to each Indivisible ove quality, and ome only, in addition to its
figure. For these qualities necessarily go in pairs; i.e. if one
Indivisible is co/d + figured, another Indivisible must be Zot +

figured. What then becomes of the supposed ‘uniformity of .

substance’ in all the Indivisibles? And, finally, it is no less
impossible to attribute to each Indivisible more than one quality
in addition to its figure. For, being indivisible, it is without
internal distinctions: all its qualities will belong to it in its
single undifferentiated identity. Suppose, then, an Indivisible is
e.g. hot, and therefore ‘suffers action’, is ‘affected’, in so far as
it is chilled. Besides being hot, it will, on the hypothesis, also
possess some other quality: e. g. it will be soft. And its softness
will qualify its indivisible identity, which is also qualified by its
_heat.. Hence gua itself—gua hot—it will ‘yield to pressure’ as
well as ‘ grow cold’, and will perhaps also produce heat, or some
other sensible quality, in another Indivisible. The Law of
Contradiction will thus be violated: for the same single
Indivisible will in the same respect suffer diverse actions, or both
‘act’ and ‘suffer action’ (268 14-20). .

The same argument applies in principle whatever qualities are.

attributed to the Indivisibles. For it is their zzdivistbiiity which
makes it impossible to ascribe a plurality of qualities to them :
and any theory, for which the ultimate Reals are Indivisibles
(whether solids or planes), is open to this criticism. For that
which is zzdivisib/e cannot contain any empty interspaces, and
cannot have a plurality of constituents. Hence there can be-no

differences of density within an Indivisible, nor can one Indivisible

be, or become, ‘rarer’ or ‘denser’ than another. Now a composite
body may have many different qualities, the qualities of one
composite body may differ from those of another, and a composite
body may change its qualities. For one and the same com-
posite: body may have within it different degrees of density, or
may change its density: and one composite body may be, or
become, denser than another. But, ex hypothest, there are no
inner differences in the Indivisible, and no differences of stuff or
texture to distinguish one Indivisible from another. Hence to
suppose that an Indivisible has, or acquires, a plurality of
qualities, is necessarily to violate the Law of Contradiction
(26° 20-24).

26* 3. oltre... etvar. ‘For none of them can be, e.g., either
hard or cold.’ Aristotle apparently selects ‘hardness’ and ‘cold’

oe ee ae: an aay ees

ee be

fe Se tee

ne

ae:

A. 8. 326% 3-24 ; 167

as examples of the dy which the Atomists cannot consistently
ascribe to their Indivisibles, because (a) we should naturally have
supposed that the Indivisibles ave ‘hard’; and (b) since
Demokritos expressly attributes heat to the spherical Indivisibles,
it seems peculiarly paradoxical that he cannot attribute cold to
any Indivisible. For heat and cold are the contrasted extremes
of a single quality (temperature), and what is susceptible of the
one is ¢o zpso susceptible also of the other.

26% 3-6. kairo... oxnpdtwv. Cf.de Anima 403» 31—404* 16,
405* 8-13 ; de Caelo 303% 14, 306 29 —307» 18.

oxnpa, 1... cGua ddiaiperov: cf. * 15> 6-9, 26? 1.

26% 9-10. Baputepdv ye... ddvatpétrwv. Cf. de Caelo 308> 35—
309" 2 : Theopbrastos, de Sensu § 61 (Diels, p. 375) Bapd pav odv xal
Kovpov TO peyeber Siaipet Anudxpitos. On the vexed question as to
whether, and in what sense, Leukippos and Demokritos attributed
weight to their indivisible solids, see Burnet, pp. 341 ff.

26°10. dote . . . Oepudrepovy, i.e., as Philoponos explains,
wore, ei TA peilw aroua Bapvrepa, SnArAov Ste Kal Ta peiLw opaipiKa
Oeppdorepa.

26° 12. Oeppdv. yvypov EHJL: but Gepydr is clearly required
by the argument. 7

264 14. TO... podakdy: cf. * 304 8-12.

26° 16. Wuxpdv. oxAnpov EHL®!: but Yrypdv is required by
the argument. For, on the hypothesis here made (viz. that each
Indivisible possesses one ‘sensible quality’ in addition to its
figure), the Atomists would not be bound to admit that some
Indivisibles were- Zard + figured, and others ot + figured. On
the other hand, if they attributed heat (or cold) to any Indivisible,
they were bound also to attribute cold (or heat) to some other
Indivisible—or, at least, so Aristotle supposes, cf. * 262 3.

26°17. od8é... abtav. Cf. Phys. 203% 34-2, de Caelo275>

31-32; Burnet, p. 336,.

26% 20-24. tiv... ddvaiperors. no the most probable inter-
pretation of this difficult passage, see * 25> 36—26® 24.

We must remember that the ‘sensible qualities ’ (the ‘ secondary’
qualities) of the composite bodies are, according to the Atomists,
due to the number, grouping, and turning of their constituent atoms
(cf. * 15> 33-162). One and the same composite body possesses
diverse qualities, because e.g. its atoms are concentrated in
different degrees, or disposed differently, in different parts of it:
i.e. because it is ‘ denser’ or ‘rarer’ in different parts of its stuff.

168 | COMMENTARY

Similarly differences of ‘density’, and change in -degree of
‘density’, will serve to explain why the qualities of one comfo-
site body are different from those of another, and how composite
bodies can change their qualities. But such an explanation is
clearly worthless, when the supposed owner of the many qualities
is an Indivisible.

rovro (* 21), sc. the impossible consequence—the violation of
the Law of Contradiction—which was shown to follow from the
supposition that e.g. a ot Indivisible possessed some other
quality besides its heat (cf. ® 18-20).

262 24-29. ett... pixpots; ‘It is a further paradox that there
should be small Indivisibles, but not large ones. For it is natural
enough, from the ordinary point of view’ (vdv, #25), ‘that the
larger bodies should be more liable to fracture than the small
ones, since the large bodies are easily broken up because they
collide with many other bodies. But why should Indivisibility
as such’ (ddws, ® 28, 1.g. adds: cf. 20> 30) ‘be the property of
small, rather than of large, bodies ?’

The atoms of Leukippos and Demokritos are indivisible,
because they are ‘absolutely full’, i.e. without interspaces.
They are physically, not mathematically, indivisible (cf. Burnet,
§ 174). Hence ‘ theoretically there is no reason why an atom
should not be as large as a world’ (Burnet, Greek Philosophy,
§ 79), as Demokritos appears to have said: see Aetios, quoted by
Diels, p. 361 1.9. (The statement of Dionysios, quoted by Diels,
p- 360 |. 35, that ‘Demokritos postulated very large atoms’ is
probably a misunderstanding of the remark correctly reported by
Aetios.) But, zz fact, the Indivisibles were all minute—their
minuteness being probably postulated by the Atomists in order
to account for their invisibility (cf. 25% 30).

26° 29-30. pia . . . otepedv, as the Atomists in fact main-
tained : cf. the passages quoted above, * 267 17.

26% 30-31. 4... dyxov; The alternative here suggested is that
the Indivisibles form qualitatively-distinct groups, e.g. a group
of fiery (i. e. spherical and therefore hot), and a group of earthy,
Indivisibles. Cf. the expression rd cwpevdpevov péyefos applied
above (25 22) to each of Empedokles’ ‘ elements ’.

26% 34. ob8év... mporépou, i.e. if the substance of the Indivisibles
is really uniform, the running together of drops of water is
precisely parallel to the coming into contact of two or more
Indivisibles. .

ee —-

oe

A. 8. 3268 24326? 10 169

26° 35 — 1. kal 8fAov... oxypara. ‘It is clear, too, that ¢hese’—
i.e, these qualitatively-distinct sets of atoms—‘ ought to be postu-
lated as “original reals”, i. e. causes from which the phenomena
result, rather than the “figures”.’ For oxypara, cf. * 26% 3-6.

2652. kav... mdoxo.. According to 25% 32-34, this is
precisely what Leukippos maintained.. But Aristotle has shown
(25> 36—26 3) that it follows from the conception of the
Indivisible (as that which is without Void), combined with the
Atomists’ theory that ‘doyew is impossible except through the
Void’, that every Indivisible must be dafés and pmfevos
Tountikov mdous. .

2652-6. ér.. . Suvaper. The Atomists maintain that there is
an infinite multiplicity of indivisible solids moving in the Void.
But this movement is inexplicable. For what sets them moving ?
(i) If that which moves them is other than themselves, they are
maQyrixa: but (ii), if each Indivisible sets itself moving, esther
(a) it is in fact divisible (into that which moves and that which is
moved), ov (b) it will unite in itself, and in the same respect,
action and passion (moving and being moved), i.e. contraries.
Hence the ‘matter’ of contrary properties—the troxeiuevoy in
which contraries inhere—will be identical-in-potentiality, as well as
numerically-identical. But that is impossible: for if the tAy be
identical-in-potentiality, the realization of its potentiality must be
‘one’—i.e. the properties, in which the potentiality becomes
actual, cannot be contraries, but must be identical.

For the general doctrine implied in » 6 (7 tAn. . . dvvaper)—1. e.
that the vAy is one ‘numerically’, but not one ‘in potentiality ’—
cf. Phys. 190% 24, 192° 1 ff.

26° 6-28. dco ..... xwpifecOar: criticism of the theory which
explained action—passion by pores, cf. * 24> 27-32.

26> 7. Sid. . . Kwicews, ‘by means of the movement facilitated
by the pores’. The construction of the genitive (ray zépwv)
is harsh: but the meaning is clear, and there is no need to alter
the text. .

26> 8-10. ci... tpdmov. If the pores be not vacua, but full
of some other body, the postulate of pores is superfluous. For
if the agent can penetrate (and therefore act upon) a body under
these conditions, it would be able to penetrate it equally well,
if it were ‘just its own continuous self’, i.e. of one texture
throughout. The conception of a porous body, whose pores are
full of another body, is the same in principle as the theory pa) cvvexés

«€

170. COMMENTARY

elvac TO wav GAN Grrecbar Suppynpuevov: i.e. Aristotle is here criti-
cizing Empedokles, cf. * 25% 6-13.

26> 10-12. ér. . . . Néyouows Cf. * 24 27-32.

26 12-13. otre .. . Staspavay. The subject of duwévar, as Philo-
ponos rightly explains, is the visual ray or rays (the des): and
the dai are the points of juncture of the two bodies, i.e. the
‘transparent’ body itself and the body filling its pores.

26> 15-16. d\ka... médw. Since, according to Empedokles,
the pores are always full of some other body, Aristotle has main-
tained that the porous body is solid throughout and as impene-
trable as if it were non-porous. The whole body—pores and all—
is 6potws wAnpes (14). This criticism will still hold, even if it be
objected that the pores—though they must contain a body, and
thus are always full—are themselves, gua pores, empty channels.
For even if we thus distinguish in thought between the pores and
the, body which fills them (even if, in this sense, the body is not
as a whole dépoiws ijpes); still the body will be impenetrable,
since its pores will always in fact be full.

26> 16-18. ei... dmmAtKovodv. Empedokles denied that any
part of the Universe was empty (cf. * 25% 6-13): and the advocates

of pores are here supposed to accept 7m principle the denial of -

a‘ void’, but to plead that the pores are zm Sact empty owing to their
tafiniicsimal size.

26°18. péya .. . dmmAtkovody, i.e. it is absurd to admit an in-
finitesimal ‘ void’, and to deny that there is a big ‘ void’, of what-
ever size (viz. however small) the ‘big’ may be. ‘ Big’ is’a relative
term, and may include a ‘void’ in any degree bigger than the
infinitesimal.

26> 18-20. 7... Kevdv. The ferm xevov means ywpa odparos :
i.e. when men dispute whether a ‘void’ exists, they are“ disputing
whether there is a place capable of receiving a body, but deprived
of it (cf. * 20%34—2). If that is they only possible meaning
of the term, it is clearly absurd to suggest that the pores are keva
if, and because, they are too small to admit a body.

26) 21-24. Sdws .. . mepuxdtwy. Action—Passion cannot be ex-
plained by pores: for even if there are pores, they can only serve
to bring the agent into contact with the internal parts of the
patient. If contact on the surface is not adequate to produce
action—passion, neither will it be produced by contact énternally :
whilst if internal contact produces action-passion, why seats not.
contact at the surface produce it ?

is ea Sten

ed ais

A. 8. 326% 10 — 9. 326% 30 171

In 24 rév... wepvkdrwy Means t&v rpds GAANAG Tovey Kal
Tmdcxew mepuxdtwv: cf. Philoponos, whose whole note on this
passage is excellent.

26> 25. ottws. Aristotle does not deny that there are ‘channels’
in bodies—e. g. the wépo. in the animals, such as the mouth, the
bowels, the veins, &c.—but he does deny that bodies are per-
-forated by infinitesimal and invisible channels, as the advocates of
pores maintained. |

26) 26-28. S:arperav . . . xwpileo@ar. ‘The sense in which every
peyeBos (and therefore also every o@ua) is through and through
divisible was discussed at length above, 168 14—17* 17.

Aristotle’s point here is that it is not necessary, in order to
account for action—passion, to suppose that bodies are perforated
with pre-existing infinitesimal channels. The agent can make
a channel for itself in the patient, since the patient is ravrn Svacperov:
and, being d.arperov, it can be actually divided so that its parts fall
asunder—i.e. so that a channel is opened in it (» 28 dvvara

xwpilec Oar).

A. 9 :

26> 29—27° 29. Tiva . .. tpédmwov. In this chapter Aristotle
briefly indicates his own theory of the mechanism of zovety—
maoxewv, emphasizing its superiority both to the theory of ‘ pores’
and to the theory of ‘ Indivisibles and Vacua’. Incidentally (27* 9-
14) he ‘criticizes the theory that a body is ‘ discretes-in-contact’,
‘and that action—passion takes place at the contacts.

26> 29-30. Tiva... mdéoxew. The phraseology, both here and
in the epilogue (2725-29), reminds us of the original formula-
tion of the problem (cf. 2266-13) and of the connexion of
the discussion of zrovetv-7doyxew with the plan of the whole work ;
cf. * 22b 1-26,

trois over is wide enough to include all possible subjects of
Toiv—Tracxelv, 1.€. Ta oToxela aS Well as Ta ex TOV GTOLXELWY.
On the other hand, 7a évra could not strictly be said yiyvecOar:
hence the active aspect of yéveots (yevvav) alone is mentioned here,
whereas in the epilogue (27% 26) the passive aspect (yiyveo6a1) is
- mentioned too. |

26> go. dpxv . . . eipnuévnv. The principle in question is,
as appears from the next sentence, that if any property y is
predicated of any subject x, « may ‘be-y’ esther potentially or
actually. i ae

172 COMMENTARY

26> 31. tovodrov : ‘such-and-such’, i.e. qualified by amy quality,
whatever the quality in question may be.

mépuKev, SC. TO Svvdpet TOLOUTOV.

26° 33. frrov S€ kat waddov. I has ‘magis autem et minus’,
which is more logical. But the reversed order is characteristic.

26> 34—27° 1. kal tavty . . . cuvexets. According to Aristotle’s
theory, the cold body, e. g., gua potentially-hot, is liable to ‘suffer
action’ from a hot body—i.e. liable to be warmed. This sus-
ceptibility pervades the cold body throughout (because it - is
a consequence of its character gua potentially-hot) and is not
restricted to parts of it or to channels within it. But though the
cold body is potentially-hot throughout, its potential heat may
vary in degree in different parts of it. There may be, as it were,
lines or ‘veins’ of intense potential heat (and therefore of intenser
susceptibility) in it, just as there are ‘veins’ in the metals, along
which they are specially susceptible to action. If we are to talk
of ‘pores’ at all, we should use the term to denote such lines of
greater intensity and greater susceptibility: we must not suggest
that the body is susceptible only along certain lines, and quite
insusceptible- in the rest of itself. Cf, for the general doctrine,
* 218 5-9.

The reading of EFJ in > 34 (uaAdov 7 Kabdzep) is due to a
misunderstanding of the illustration. The ‘veins’ in the metal
are not ‘pores’ in the sense repudiated by Aristotle. Their sub-
stance is the same as that of the rest of the metal: it is only a
difference of degree.

27° 1-6. cupues ... mdoxew. Passion implies (i) two distinct
bodies: the patient must not be grown together with the agent,
so as to form with it a single naturally-coherent body: (1i) con-
tact, either immediate or mediated, between patient and agent.
If the contact is mediate, the medium must itself be a body
by nature such as to suffer action (from the agent) and to act
(upon the patient).

27°6. 15... py. Aristotle’s own view (cf. * 26> 34—27® 1) is
that a body, if za6yrixov at all, is wafyrixdy as a whole, through
and through. This follows necessarily from his explanation of
‘susceptibility’ as due to the body’s possessing a property
potentially. Hence any explanation of zacyew, which implies that
the patient is susceptible only in parts of itself, must be rejected
as erroneous. Now all the attempts to explain zacyew, which
Aristotle has been criticizing, do in fact imply the view ry pév

Ty Cae PF
-

A. 9. 3265 31—327% 14 173

macxew, TH 5¢ py: for they ascribe the patient’s susceptibility to
peculiarities within its structure, i.e. to featurés belonging to parts
of it, and not to a property characterizing it as a whole.

Thus (i) the Atomists explained zacyew by the vacua inter-
spacing the Indivisibles: (ii) Empedokles explained it by the
‘porosity’ of the patient, i.e. by the hypothesis that the apparently
continuous body was really ‘ discretes-in-contact’, or was traversed
by ‘veins’ filled with a different material (cf. * 256-13): and
(iii) Plato viewed the body as ‘planes-in-contact’, and explained
macxew by penetration and division at the contacts (cf. 25> 24—

33).
2726-7. Svopicavtas ... Aextéov. As the text stands, we must

suppose that the reference (€v dpy7) is to 24> 26 ff., where Aristotle

distinguished various forms of the supposition of ‘partial sus-
ceptibility’. The whole sentence (27 6-7) would mean :—‘ We
distinguished above the various theories of partial susceptibility,
and have now to make the following remarks’.

On the whole, however, it seems more probable from the next
sentence (27% 7-14) that é¢v dpyxq refers to the elaborate discussion
(16® 14—17 17) of the sense in which every magnitude is divisible
through and through. I have accordingly ventured to mark a
lacuna before diopicavras, and to interpret the passage as follows :—
‘The supposition of partial susceptibility (is possible only for
those who hold an erroneous view concerning the divisibility of
magnitudes. For us) the following account results from the
distinctions established at the beginning of our treatise’.

27° 7-14. et... dddvarov. The results established in Chapter 2
may be summarized as follows. (i) Every magnitude is divisible.
There are no Indivisibles. (ii) No magnitude is zavry dvauperov,
i,e€. no magnitude is such that ‘through and through’ division of it
could ever actually have taken place: but (iii) every magnitude is
mavty Suuperdv, i.e. it is always possible, given a ‘magnitude,
to divide it anywhere, though not everywhere at once. Cf. * 16* 19,
* 17% 2-17.

Aristotle here presupposes and refers to these results, but his
reference is brief and obscure. He makes no mention of (iii),

- though it expresses the truth as to the divisibility of magnitudes,

presumably because this thesis would lend no support to the
supposition of ‘ partial susceptibility ’.

He argues :—(a) If there is a limit to the divisibility of the
magnitude, i.e. if there are indivisible solids (as the Atomists

174 ~ COMMENTARY

maintained) or indivisible planes (as Plato thought), then no
composite body will be susceptible through and through: for the
Indivisibles are dza6y (cf. 25> 36—268 3). But then no body or
magnitude will be continuous: for wav ovvexés Suaiperov eis del
dvatpera (Phys. 231» 16).

(b) But if—as is in truth the case—the hypothesis of Indivisibles
is false, and every body is divisible, there is no ground for sup-
posing that a patient is susceptible only in parts of itself. For,
when once we have recognized that there are no Indivisibles, it is
clear that the opponents’ description of a composite body as ‘ dis-
cretes-in-contact’ means neither more nor less than that the seis
is divisible through and through.

There is no difficulty in the first part (27% 7—9) of this secant
but the second part (# 9-14) is most obscure. Aristotle’s opponents
regarded a body as discretes-in-contact, and explained zacyew by
the theory that a body so constituted ‘ could be separated (i. e. by
the agent) at the contacts’ (®11-12). Now—Aristotle urges—
since there are no Indivisibles, nothing is gained by describing
the body as ‘ discretes-in-contact ’ : all that the opponents can really
mean is that the body is ‘divisible’ (i. e. divisible through and
through). And if it is ‘divisible’ (or if, as they express it, ‘it can
be separated at the contacts’), then—even though it has not yet

in fact been divided—it will ‘be duppypyeévov’, i.e. it will ‘be in a

state of dividedness’ so far as is required for tacxew as they
conceive it.

In 27° 11 7 dvauperov eivac must be interpreted as equivalent to
7) mavtTn Svaiperov elvar. For, since there are no Indivisibles, the
parts, which are in contact, will themselves contain smaller parts
in contact—and so on ad infinitum.

- We must, I think, supply for the whole argument the suppressed
corollary that, gva ravry diaperdv, the body will be ravryn rabyrixoy,
since its susceptibility is supposed to be due to its divisibility
(cf. 278 14-15).

27% 8. mdros. We should rather have expected érireSov (cf.
e.g. 255 26, 29222). The reference is no doubt to Plato.

27°12. domep hast tives, e.g. Plato, cf. 25» 32.

27° 13-14. Buvarév... dddvatov: ‘for—since it can be divided
—nothing inconceivable results if this potentiality be supposed
realized.’

The argument in ® 11r— =e depends upon Aristotle’s conception
of 76 duvardv, for which see * 164 19.

ee ee

ES ee ee ee ee oe

A. g. 327%8 — 10. 328» 22 ° 175

27° 14-25. Shws . . . petaBdddovtos. All the explanations of
moviv—racyew, which Aristotle has been criticizing, imply that
the patient is susceptible only in parts of itself: and this, as we
have just seen, presupposes erroneous views as to the ‘ divisibility ’
of magnitudes. But, in addition to this special difficulty, the
theories in question are open to a genera/ criticism (# 14 ddws de
xt.) : for they assume that A can only act on B by ‘ splitting’ it,
i.e. by dividing its particles from one another. This narrow con-
ception of zovety-rdoyxew is absurd, for it makes it impossible
for them to recognize either Alteration or Growth and Diminu-
tion.

27°14. ylvecOau, SC. TO tacxeLv.

27°17. bypdv... wemnyés. For this antithesis, cf. * 30 12-24.
27°18. ob8€ .. . S:abtyq: cf. * 15> 33—162 2.
27* 19-21. olte yap... dykous. Since the indivisible solids are

invisible owing to their minuteness (cf. 25% 30), it is difficult to see
what right Aristotle has to make these assertions. His appeal to
perception (# 16 épapev) is irrelevant.

272 21. oxdnpd. For the meaning of cxAnpov, cf. * 30% 8-12.

27° 23-25. o0 ... petaBdddovtos. ‘ For if there is to be apposi-
tion (instead of the growing thing having changed as a whole,
either by the admixture of something or by its own transformation), —
increase of size will not have resulted in any and every part.’
Cf. * 20> 34—214 29.

In 27% 25 the genitive (weraBddXovros) is at first sight perplex-
ing. We should perhaps have expected 7) kal atrd 7) puxGevros
twos : but since the order of the alternatives is reversed, it becomes
desirable to add a participle to xa atrd, and the added participle
is naturally assimilated in case to pixGevros.

A. 10

27? 30—28 22. howdy . . . Evwous. By the account of pigs
(or ‘chemical combination’) in the present chapter, Aristotle
completes the programme which he had sketched for himself at
the beginning of Chapter 6: cf. * 22> 1-26.

First, he explains the precise significance of péés, distinguishing
it carefully from yéveois Kai POopd, avéyors, dAAolwois, and mere
avvOeors (‘mechanical mixture’). If there is to be pigs in the
proper sense of the term, two or more distinct and separate bodies
must come together so as to form a single resultant in which they
are merged. The properties. of the resultant must be different

176 COMMENTARY

from those of the constituents: and it must be uniform in its pro-
perties throughout (not merely appear uniform to perception) so
that every part of it, however small, possesses the same properties
as the whole. Nevertheless it must be possible to recover the
original constituent bodies from it by a process of ‘ separation’ or
‘chemical analysis’ (27° 30 —28? 17).

Next, Aristotle explains the conditions under which pigs can
occur. Such a process is possible (a) because there are bodies
which are naturally active and reactive, passive and re-passive,
in relation to one another, and (b) because everything can de what
it is either potentially or actually. This distinction between the-
potential and actual grades of a thing’s denmg accounts for the
temporary submergence of the properties of the constituents, and
again for their re-emergence under chemical analysis of the
compound (28# 18-31). :

Finally (having stated certain conditions which are specially
favourable for the occurrence of the process, and having briefly
considered certain exceptional instances of pigs and explained
them in terms of his general theory), Aristotle summarizes the
results of the whole discussion in the form of a ‘scientific’ defini-
tion of ‘the combinable’ and ‘ combination’ (282 g1 — » 22),

The doctrine of the present chapter is briefly restated (and
slightly supplemented) below: cf. * 34>8-30. The reader who
is interested in Aristotle’s conception of pigis should consult
Alexander’s zepi xpdcews kai aigéyoews : Zabarella’s De AMistione,
De Misti Generatione et Interitu, De Qualttatibug Elementaribus :
and Zabarella’s commentary on the present chapter, and on
Meteorologica, A. 1. By utilizing these materials, I endeavoured
some years ago to give a short and accessible account of
Aristotle’s theory in the Journal of Philology, No. 57.

27% 30-31. kata . . . peOddou. Aristotle’s treatment of piéis
follows the same general lines as his discussion of 47 (Chapter 6)
and of zrovetyv-racyxew (Chapters 7-9).

278 31-32. tov... dpxqs. The reference is to 22" 1-26, which is the
dpxy of the present investigation. Chapters 6-10, with the addition
perhaps of B. 1-8, appear to constitute one of the minor treatises
of which the zepi yevéoews kat POopas is composed. On the relation
of such subordinate constituent Adyor or pePodo. to an Aristotelian
‘work’, cf. Jaeger, pp. 148 ff.

27° 32-34. oxemtéov . . . eddos. From the point of view of
Aristotle’s general logical theory, pigs falls under the head of

A. 10. 327% 30 —b6 177

Attribute (za@os). It is an ‘adjectival’, whose ‘existence’ is its
inherence in something other than itself as the subject of which
it is predicable or the substance of which it is a property. Its
esse is inesse, its elvas is irdpxew. Hence the complete explanation
of pééis must be such as to furnish the materials from which its
‘scientific definition’ can be elicited. Its ‘scientific definition’
must specify (a) the substance or substances in which, (b) owing
to a determinate proximate cause, (c) that determinate process,
which the term pigis properly means, must occur (cf. Introd.
§§ 7-9, * 14% 2-3, * 20% 34—219 29, * 21> 16-17). Accordingly
we shall find Aristotle claiming in the epilogue (28> 14-22) that
he has shown (i) ére éor piéis, i.e. that it occurs in, or is
predicable of, certain determinate substances, (ii) r/ éo7u, i.e. what
the term properly means, and (iii) da 7é, i. e. to what precise cause
its occurrence is due. And we shall find him concentrating the
results of his discussion in a ‘ scientific definition’ (cf. * 28» 22).

In 278 32—34 Aristotle enumerates five questions for discussion.
The enumeration is tentative and preliminary : and we need not
attach too much importance either to the precise significance of
the different questions or to the order of their enumeration. The
whole matter is exhaustively discussed by Zabarella, whose inter-
pretation I accept with one slight modification. We are to ask :—
What is the meaning (1) of combination, and (2) of the com-
binable (ri éorw, i. q. rf onpaiver)? (3) Of what existent things is
combination the attribute (i.e. what is its primary and adequate
subject)? (4) What are the conditions under which combination
is predicable of these things (was tmdpye, sc. guomodo fit—a
question including the inquiry as to the proximate cause of the
occurrence of pigis)? (5) Does combination exist in fact, i.e. is
there a distinctive subject of which combination is the distinctive
and commensurate attribute ?

27° 33-66. ér... dvta. Aristotle appears to begin with the
question enumerated last : but 7” fact (as he points out, 27 6-9)
his discussion concerns the meaning of the terms pifis and 76
puxrov. The doubt as to the existence of combination arises, as
he shows, only from misinterpretation of the term. Hence he is
really opening the discussion of questions (1) and (2).

According to Aristotle’s own theory, as we shall see (cf. below,
B. 8), all combination in the sublunary region involves all
four ‘simple bodies’, and results in one or other of the épo.opepy :
i.e. the resultant of pigs is always a quaternary compound, and

2254 N

178 COMMENTARY

the combining constituents are always Earth, Air, Fire, and Water
(cf. *14%19, *21r%1g-22). At present, however, Aristotle is
considering the subject quite generally and assumes that every
puxOev implies (at least) two puxrd OF pryvipeva.

Now certain thinkers argued that pééis is impossible. For we
must suppose either (a) that both constituents are preserved in
the compound, or (b) that both are destroyed, or (c) that one is
destroyed, whilst the other is preserved. But the characteristic
conditions of pigs cannot be satisfied under any of these sup-
positions, although no other alternative seems possible. (a) If both
constituents survive unaltered, there is no pigs: for wiéis implies
that the constituents have merged in a new resultant (cf. * 27% 30—
28> 22). (b) If both are destroyed, ‘they’ ave not at all and
a fortiort are not combined: whilst (c) if one is destroyed and
the other is preserved, the two do not contribute to constitute
a joint resultant. They have not ‘combined’, but one zs and the
other zs xot.

27>2. dpoiws éxew, i.e. the constituents in the supposed
‘compound’ are in the same condition as they were before the
supposed ‘combination’ took place. But in >4 dépolws éyovrwv
refers to the condition of the constituents relatively to one another :
i.e. ‘combination demands uniformity of condition in the con-
stituents’, for both must contribute to the being of the resultant.

27>6-10. oitos . . . dows Gy. The preceding argument
rests on a misconception of the exact meaning of pégis and 76d
puxrov, and a consequent confusion of these terms with yéveous—
pOopa and 7d yevvntov Kat POaprov. The difficulties it raises
against the occurrence of pigs will all disappear when this
confusion has been cleared up. Accordingly Aristotle proceeds
to discuss the precise significance of the term pigis, and begins
(27 10-22) by eliminating certain processes which are liable to
be confused with combination.

27>10-13. GAAd. . . pOeipeoar. When fire burns wood, there
is pOopa of the wood and yeveois of the fire. There is no pigs
either (i) of fire and wood, or (ii) of the pieces of the wood
with one another. This instance illustrates the second and third
alternatives (cf. * 274 33-6): constituents, of which doth or one
are destroyed, cannot be said to ‘be combined’. At the same
time, it prepares the way for the exclusion of avgéyous as not piéis
proper: for the ‘consumption’ of food by the aiéyrixdv was
compared to the ‘consumption’ of inflammable material by fire,

A. 10. 327> 2-31 179

and Aristotle had suggested that the food was ‘mixed’ with the
growing tissue (cf, 22® 8-16).

27> 13-17. tov... 6parat. Combination is distinguished from
(i) Growth and (ii) Alteration. Growth is an illustration of the
third alternative (the destruction of one constituent), and Altera-
tion illustrates the first alternative, viz. the preservation of both
constituents: cf. * 279 33 —b6,

(i) It was only by a loose use of the term that Aristotle oe
(22% 9) of the food being ‘mixed’ with the growing tissue. For
the tissue rgd animated with the indwelling ai&yruxév—‘ con-
sumes’ the food and converts it into its own substance: it does
not co-operate with the food to produce a new resultant eteren
in character from both.

(il) No change of quality on the part of a body is ‘combina-
tion’: for both ‘constituents ’—viz. the body and the quality —
coexist unaltered in the result. Thus, e.g., ‘the shaped lump
of wax’, ‘the whitened body’, ‘the learned man’, are resultants
of dAXoiwors and not of pgs: for the substance which is qualified,
and the quality (cxjpa, wafos, or fis) which qualifies it, seuss |
both survive.

27>17-22. adddAa ... xwptotdv. If the same substance ‘com-
bines’ in itself two qualities (if e.g. a man is both émurypov and
Nevxds), this coincidence of zaOy (or of égis and zdOos) is not
‘combination’ of them : for only self-subsistents (only bodies, not
their attributes) can ‘combine’. Combination implies com-
binables which exist fev se before the combination: but no zaos
can exist fer se. Every wafos is an ‘adjectival’, its esse is inesse :
cf. * 20 17-25.

Incidentally Aristotle criticizes those philosophers who postu-
lated a primordial ‘ togetherness’ of all things and described this
asa ptypa: for ‘all things’ would include +é6n, and these cannot
‘combine’. Philoponos supposes the plural (oi. . . daaxovres) to
mean oi wepi “Avagaydpav : but Aristotle is perhaps thinking of the
‘Sphere’ of Empedokles, as well as of Anaxagoras (cf. * 348 26-
b2, Phys. 187% 20-23). :

27> 22-31. éwet...attav. The argument (professing to show
that piéis does not in fact occur) assumed that only three
alternatives are possible and urged that, whichever of these
three we accept, the process is not pigis (cf. *27933-6). In
other words, the conception of piéégis is self-contradictory: for it
demands doth a the constituents shall be merged (i.e. destroyed)

N 2

180 : COMMENTARY

in the resultant, avd that they shall survive (i.e. not be merged),
since they are to be recoverable by analysis. Aristotle here
points out that there is a fourth possibility, which this argument
has neglected. The argument assumes that a thing must either
be or not-be x: but in fact we must recognize a distinction in the
grade of a thing’s deing (cf. * 2630). For a thing, which zs «,
may e-potentially x or may be-actually x; and a thing, which ¢s-
not x actually, may nevertheless de-porentially x. If this distinction
be applied, the conception of pgis ceases to be self-contradictory :
i.e. the different characteristics of ‘combination’ (or of the
‘compound ’) are compatible with one another. Each of the
constituents has, to begin with, its own distinctive character:
they are, e.g., respectively actually-~ and actually-y. In the
process they merge in a resultant with a new character, 2. Yet
they have not been destroyed, but have simply sunk to a lower
grade of being ; i.e. they have become Jotentially-x and potentially-
y. The character of the compound is neither x nor y, nor «+y;
but an intermediate something, z, which participates in the
characters of both constituents or results from the co-operation
of both in a tempered and moderated form. And, under suitable
conditions, the compound can be dissolved so that the con-
stituents will re-emerge. in their original state as actually-x and
actually-y.

There are two difficulties in this passage. (i) The first is
a question of fact. To what phenomena is Aristotle referring
when he speaks of ra puyvipeva as dvvapeva xwpilerOar radw? It
seems certain from the sequel that he is thinking of the analysis
of a genuine chemical compound: and therefore Philoponos is
beside the mark, when he refers to the recovery of wine (from
a mechanical mixture of wine and water) by filtering (cf. p. 191,
gdact yoov Sa tav Kadoupévwv ev TH ovvnbeia oTpariwrdv roTapod
SinDovpevov tov Kexpapevov olvov Siaxpivew tod voatos tov olvov).
Yet what facts of chemical analysis were known to Aristotle ?
Or is he relying upon some of the phenomena of putrefaction ? -

(ii) The second difficulty is one of interpretation. In what
precise sense are the constituents preserved ofential/y in the
compound? What is meant by the statement (> 25-26) that ‘each
of them may still de-potentially what it was before they were
combined ’, and again by the phrase (> 30-31) owlera: yap 4 Svvapus
avrav P ‘

Readers of Aristotle are familiar with two senses in which

A. 10, 327 22—328 18 181

a thing is said to ‘be-potentially x’. Thus (i) a student of
geometry is duvdyer yewperpys when he is acquiring, but has not
yet mastered, the ééis of geometrical demonstration : and (ii) the
geometer is duvdper yewperpys when he is not actually solving
a geometrical problem. In sense (i), the dvvapyis is contrasted
with the éés into which it may develop: in sense (ii), the ééis
is contrasted with the évépyea (the @ewpia) in which it is
actualized (cf. e.g. de Anima 417% 22 ff., and often). But—as
Philoponos and Zabarella rightly observe—the constituents are
not preserved dvvaper in the compound in either of these senses.
Not in the first sense: for, ex hypothesi, before they combine,
they are already actually-x and actually-y, whereas the student is
not actually a geometer, but only on the road to become one.
Vor in the second .sense: for, ex hypothest, the constituents have
lost their distinctive natures in the compound and have co-
operated to produce a resultant with fresh properties of its own.
But the geometer does not lose his égis when he is not bewpar.
Philoponos (p. 188) compares the state of the constituents in
the compound to. that of the geometer who is trying to solve
a problem when drunk—évepye? pev cata thy cE, od« eidukpwGs
de. The constituents, he thinks, retain their distinctive ‘ powers
of action’ in a diminished and tempered degree—xexdédAacrar
yap 7 abrav cidukpuys évépyeta, Kat od« or oiarep Hv mpl pexOjvat.
This interpretation is endorsed by Zabarella (the constituents are
‘non penitus corrupta, sed solum refracta et labefactata’) and
itis confirmed and further explained below, 28 28-31 (cf. * 28% 29)
and 3458-30. Cf. also Journal of Philology, No. 57, pp. 81-6:
and below, 33* 28 and 32. | ,
27> 26. kai odx dmodkwddta, sc. évdexerar Ta puyOevTa «iva.
Ought we perhaps to read droAwddTwv ? :
27> 31 —289 18. 85 . . . médkw. The first problem with its
difficulties has now been solved. The meaning of pigis has been
explained, and the explanation has dispelled all doubts as to its
occurrence. The constituents survive in the compound, for their
‘merging ’ is simply a lowering of their grade of being: and they
can ‘re-emerge’, for they can recover their original fullness or
actuality of being. It is not a passage from being to nonentity,
and a return from nothing to something. It is merely a change
from more to less, and from less to more, a lowering and
a heightening of the degree of being. |
We proceed therefore to the discussion of the problem im-

182 COMMENTARY

mediately connected with these difficulties as to the mode of
survival of the constituents (31 7d... cuvexés Tovrows amropnpa).
This is formulated ina way which assumes that piéis (combination)
is Only a special case of ovveo1s (mechanical mixing). ‘Is com-
bination ’, Aristotle asks (» 32-33), ‘ something relative to percep-
tion’, i. €. is it distinguished from ovvGeors merely by the limitations
of our vision? The question is developed by bringing out the
alternatives which it implies (32 Svuperéov, cf. * 142-3),
thus :—(i) Is there pééis when the constituents have been divided
into parts no longer distinguishable by our vision and when every
such part of one constituent is juxtaposed to a corresponding part
of the other constituent? Or (ii) does pééis require division of the
constituents into w/timate least parts, and must every minimal part
of one constituent be juxtaposed to a minimal part of the other ?

Both these alternatives are then rejected by Aristotle (28% 5-17),
and the complete otherness of piéis and ovvOects is emphasized.
He is consequently obliged to discuss ‘once more’ (28° 18 zaduw)
mos évdéxetar yiyverOar 7 pigs. In other words the problem
raised at 27> 32-33 is really the question was tmdpxer (or was
evdexerar yiyverOar) 4 pigis: and the solution (28 18 ff.) involves
the determination of the precise character of the combinables,
1. €. (¢z¢er alia) the exhibition of those features in the combining
bodies which are the proximate cause of their combination (cf.
"29° 32-34).

27> 33—28°17. Stay . . . SiatpeOAvar. This passage is un-
fortunately obscure, partly owing to difficulties of reading and
partly owing to its compression. Aristotle’s treatment of a similar
problem (the pigis of colours) in the de Sensu (439 19 —440%23) is,
if anything, more obscure than the present passage (to which he
refers at 440° 3, 13), and it throws very little light on the discussion
here. ™ |

The two views of pigis (see preceding note), which Aristotle here
puts forward for criticism, agree in recognizing no difference of
principle between pigis and ovvOeows. According to both of them,
pigs is a mechanical mixing or a shuffle, and not an interpenetra-
tion or a fusion, of the constituents. According to both, therefore, .
pikis is mpos rHv aicOnoiv zt (27> 33), though Aristotle speaks as
if this were true only of the first view; for, according to both, the
resultant is not really, but only appears to be, a homogeneous
compound. An ideally acute vision would discern the different
constituents in the whole, and would see that they. are juxtaposed,

A. 10. 327> 33-3288 2 183

not fused. The difference between the two views is one of
degree. According to the first, the constituents have been divided
into units, which our vision does not discriminate, but which are
not supposed to be ultimate atomic parts. Thus we should speak
of a uigéis of wheat and barley, if each grain of wheat were juxta-
posed to a grain of barley (288 2-3). But, according to the second,
the constituents have been divided into ultimate parts—i. e. into
atoms ; and each atom of one constituent has been juxtaposed to
an atom of the other. Aristotle urges against both views that the
resultant is not dpuovopepés, i.e. that the constituents are not
merged in a new product, but simply shuffled to form an aggregate.
And he urges against the second view that it assumes (what he has
proved to be untenable) that a body can be divided into atomic
parts.

His main contention is that pigs proper is 7 principle distinct
from ovvOeo.s. For 1rd puxev must be Spoopepés, whereas 7d
avvOerov differs in quality in different parts of itself, since its
components are not fused, but merely aggregated. The reader
will observe that pééis, as Aristotle conceives it, demands a more
thorough union of the constituents than that assigned to..the
constituents of a chemical compound by modern chemical theory.
In so far at least as modern chemistry regards a compound as
a mere re-arrangement or shuffle of the atoms of the combining
constituents, Aristotle would accuse it of confusing pigis with
avvOecis. Any such theory falls under the second of the two views
which Aristotle here attacks.

27> 33-35. Stav . . . aigOyoe. otrws (5 33) and rodrov tov
tpérov (» 34) are doth antecedents of dare (35). The parts must
bé smaller than the minima visibifia, and they must be so juxta-
posed as to be individually indiscernible.

282 1-2. . . . ptxPévrav; ‘Or ought we to say “No: but
they have been combined when the result is such that any and
every part of one constituent is juxtaposed to a part of the
other? 2’ .

I have ventured to read GAN’ (dre) €orw woTe.. «

For the two views here in question, see *27>33—2817.
According to ¢he first, the supposed puxGev is really a ovvGerov in
which small pieces of one constituent alternate with small pieces
of the other: and the small pieces—though we cannot discern
them—retain the characters of the whole constituents (cf. 28° 7
owldpeva). According to the second view, the supposed puxdev

184 COMMENTARY

is really a cvvOerov in which ¢he atoms of one constituent alternate
with ¢he atoms of the other—the atoms being indiscernible even
to an ideally-acute vision.

The first view—to judge by Aristotle’s illustration (28% 2- ghee
is merely a popular view implied in the common use of the term
piéis in everyday life. Alexander (epi xpdcews kat aigjoews, ed.
Bruns, p. 214) is mistaken in attributing it to Demokritos. The
second view, as Philoponos rightly says, is that of Demokritos. If
Alexander (l.c.) is right in attributing a view of this kind to
Epikouros, we must suppose that here—as in other respects—
Epikouros made no real advance on Demokritos.

28° 2-3. déyerort . . . te@y. Zabarella insists that we must
suppose the wheat and barley to have been ground to powder, as
otherwise the particles would not be indiscernible to sense: and
Philoponos (p. 192, 1. 26) paraphrases wovep el tis wepidadw Aerrhy
ék wupav pier ddevpw kpiOns. But the only natural interpretation
of yrurotv rap dvtrwodvv is to suppose that the single grains are
shuffled, and this is confirmed by de Sensu 4404-6. In such
a shuffle the single grains would not be ‘discernible to vision’,
unless they were separated from the mass: and this is all that
Aristotle means.

28° 3-5. ei... wap driody. ‘But every body is divisible and
therefore, since body combined ‘with body is uniform in texture
throughout, azy and every part of each,constituent ought to be
juxtaposed to a part of the other.’

The compound resulting from piégis is uniform in texture, i. e.
each of its minutest parts must exhibit the same character as the
whole. If, then, pééis is a shuffle, it is illogical to stop the
division of the constituents at e. g. the single grains of wheat and
barley. For the compound is divisible ad infinitum (since every
body is divisible): and yet each of its minutest parts must contain
a part (or parts) of both constituents. The only logical view,
therefore, is the second one: viz. that the compound is a mosaic
of the atoms of its constituents, This, of course (as Aristotle will
point out immediately), is in the end impossible: for, since every
body is divisible, there are no atoms.

For puxrdv (#4), i. q. pexGer, cf. e. g. 34> 31.

28° 5-17, émei. . . SiatpeOfvar. Aristotle lays down two theses :
(i) Composition is quite other than combination, and (ii) No body
can be divided into least, i.e. not further divisible, parts. It
follows (a) that combination is not the juxtaposition of little «’s

ye. .

A. 10, 328% 2-31 185

and little y’s, small pieces of the constituents x and y (the first
view must therefore be rejected); and (b) that the juxtaposition
of atoms of x and y is impossible (i.e. ¢he second view is un-
tenable).

The whole is one sentence, including a long parenthesis (* 8-15
avvleris . . . pepsypévov). The ovre of * 15 corresponds to the
ovre of 27, :

28° 8. xpao.s. Strictly speaking, xpaous is that species of pigs
in which the constituents are liquids: cf. Zofics 122> 25-31 ;
Journal of Philology, No. 57, p. 73. But Aristotle does not
consistently employ xpaous in this restricted sense: in ® 12, e. g.,
Tod kpadevros is equivalent to rod puxbévros. Moreover, in the end
only liquids, or things gua liquefied, can combine : cf. * 28 24.

288 9-10. ot ee... . pdprov. The character of the compound
depends upon the proportion in which its constituents are com-
bined (*14%19): and since the compound is dépocopepés, the
constituents mtist be present in the same proportion in every part
of it as in the whole.

The amounts of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water must be propor-
tionally identical (e.g.) in a lump of flesh and in the minutest
particle of the lump. But this condition would not be satisfied
if pigs were what the advocates of the fivs¢ view suppose.

28° 14-15. kal... od0€v peutypévov. Aristotle was going to say
‘the same thing will be combined to the short-sighted percipient,
and not combined to the man with acute vision’: but he substi-
tutes 7G Avyxet & od6@v peprypevor (‘to the eye of Lynkeus nothing
will be combined’) for the second clause, thus producing a slight ~
anacoluthon. ;

H reads Avyye? (i. q. Avyxe?, the dative of Avyé): but I can find
no evidence that Aristotle credited the lynx with sharp sight.

28°18. mddww. Cf. *27>31— 28418. Bonitz (Jud. 559° 18)
is, I think, mistaken in quoting this passage as an example of the
use of zdéAw to mark the next step in the argument (cf. * 24° 25).

28° 18-31. éor. . . . kowdv. Aristotle’s own account, which
is here given, involves answering the questions :—(i) What is the
primary commensurate subject of which pigs is predicable ? (ii)
Wee is the proximate cause of the occurrence of jes? (cf.

* 27% 32-34). |

(i) The things of which pégéis is commensurately predicable—
the ‘combinables’—must be (a) reciprocally active and re-
ciprocally passive bodies, which (b) are easily-divisible, and (c)

186 COMMENTARY

are present in such amounts that their ‘powers of action’ are
more or less balanced. If these conditions are satisfied, the com-
binables will produce, reciprocally in one another, (ii) that kind
of éAdofwo1s which is the proximate cause of the ‘unification’
called pigis. The dAdAotwors in question is a reciprocal tempering
of the distinctive qualities of the combinables such that a new
substance emerges, whose qualities are a compromise between the
qualities of the constituents (cf. * 27> 22-31).

282 18-23. ds papev . . . odpaow. Cf. e.g. *24%24—? 22,
* 248 34—by, * 24b 13-18. Since iarpixy and iyiera do not share
in the vAy of bodies, they cannot ‘act upon’ and reciprocally
‘suffer action from’ the latter: hence they do not heal the patient
by combining with his body.

284 24. edSiaipera. Since, as we shall see (28> 1-2), ra eddpiora
are most easily divided, and since ra evdépucra are equivalent to ra
iypd, it follows that ra typa are the ‘most combinable’ of bodies.
In the end, it is liquids that combine; or at lea$t the presence
of moisture is a conditio-sine gua non of combination. The metals,
e. g., have first to be liquefied (molten), in order to combine:
cf. Alexander, epi xpdcews kai avéjoews, p. 230, ll. 34 ff.

282 24-25. mohdG .. . ouvTiOeueva: ‘if a great quantity, or
a large bulk, of one of these is brought together with a little,
or with a small piece, of another...’

But Aristotle’s usage does not consistently support any clear
distinction between the antitheses zroAv—ddtyov and péya—puxpor :
cf. my note on de Lin. Jnsec. 968° 4. |

282 26. petaBddder ... kpatoiv. Cf. Alexander, l.c.,p.230, ll. 5-12.

28% 29. tats Suvdweow. Cf. *27> 22-31, 33228 and 32; Alexander,
l.c., p. 230, ll. 29-30 da tHv Tov Svvapévov [2. duvdpewv| iodryta
Kal Gs rovet Kal maoyer.. .

28" 29-31. tore . . . xowdv, Each of the constituents, gua
active, is ‘dominant’ relatively to the other gua passive. Neither
of them is absolutely dominant. Hence each of them is drawn
out of its Own nature towards the nature of the other: but neither
of them becomes the other. Each meets the other half-way, and
the resultant is a compromise between them.

28% 31-33. gavepov... maOytixd. Cf. Alexander, l.c., p. 229,
ll. 8-11. Aristotle is assuming the results of his discussion of
action—passion in A. 7. : |

28° 34. paov . . . peOioraor. Contact is required for action—
passion (cf. * 23%12-22). Hence, since division of the con-

A. 10. 328418 —> 13, 187

stituents facilitates their thorough contact, it facilitates their
action—passion and therefore their combination.

284 35-1. 85 . . . puxtd. ‘Hence, amongst the divisible
susceptible materials, those whose shape is readily adaptable have
a tendency to combine.’

Saupe, i. G. evdiatpérwv (so also below, ? 4).

28> 2. jv. Bonitz (Zvd. 9817) interprets jv as a reference
to de Caelo 313>8. But the imperfect is idiomatic: ‘that is
precisely what 70 evopicrw eivac means’. Cf. e.g. * 14> 25-26,
31> 23, and Bonitz, Jud. 2204 45.

28> 3-4. otov. . . Siarpetav. 7d iypdv is defined as ‘ that which,
being readily adaptable in shape, is not determinable by any limit
of its own’: cf. * 29> 30-32.

28> 4. yAioxpov. On the contrariety yA‘oypov-Kpadpov, see
* 308 4-7. Instances of typa, which are yAdoxpa, are oil (30% 5-6,
Meteor. 382» 16), pitch (AZezeor., ib.) and bird-lime (igds, Meteor.
3855). On the whole, ‘ viscous’ fairly represents the meaning.
A substance, whether soft-solid or “iguid, is yioypov, when it is
extensible (€Axrév), instead of falling readily asunder into drops or
small particles (cf. Meteor. 387% 11-15).

28> 5-14. taita . . . étépwv. Aristotle calls attention to two
typical cases of seigserfact combination, of which the first is not
properly-speaking ‘ combination’ at all.

(i) If one constituent is a viscous liquid, it increases the volume
and bulk, but otherwise produces no change. Thus, oil and
water do not ‘combine’: the result is a mere admixture which
is ‘thicker’ or ‘coarser’ than both the constituents (JZeteor.
383» 20-28).

(ii) If one only of the constituents is waGyrixdy—Or | is super
latively ra@yrixdv relatively to the other (7 o@ddpa 7d dé mayrrav
iipéa)—the insusceptible constituent ‘takes it up’ with little or
no increase of its own bulk. The susceptible constituent disappears,
i.e. is entirely absorbed by the other. The only trace of its
presence is a change of colour in the énsusceptib/e constituent.

Thus bronze ‘takes up’ tin, the only apparent effect being
a whitening of the bronze. This is to be regarded as a somewhat
equivocal case of combination. The bronze and the tin behave
towards one another partly as ‘combinables’ and partly as
‘matter’ and ‘form’ :—they falter and hesitate, as it were, which
attitude to adopt.

2812-13. 6 yap . . . pévov. According to Kopp (Geschichte

188 COMMENTARY

der Chemie, iv, p. 113) xaAxds is used to denote both copper and
brass (i.e. an alloy containing two-thirds copper and one-third
zinc). Kopp (l.c., iv, pp. 125 ff.) is uncertain what is meant by
kacoirepos in Homer and Herodotos, but suggests that the
KeArikds xacotrepos (referred to in de Mir. Auscult, 834° 6) is an
alloy containing tin.

I have translated yaAxds ‘bronze’ (which contains ten parts of
tin to ninety parts of copper), and xarrirepos ‘tin’, because this
seems to suit the phenomenon here described: cf. Roscoe,
Lessons in Elementary Chemistry, ed. 1882, p. 155.

Aristotle recognizes two main classes of éuovopepy, viz. (i) those
which belong to animate nature, to plants and animals (e. g. €vAov,
rows, cdpé, daTotv, vedpov, dépya), and (ii) those which belong
to inanimate nature. The latter are usually grouped together as
ra. peradAevdueva, but they include (a) the metals proper (e. g. gold,
iron, silver), and (b) 7a dpuxrd, e.g. ‘the insoluble kinds of

stones’ and cavédapaxy, ayxpa, pidros, Oeiov (? = red sulphate of ©

arsenic, ochre, ruddle, sulphur). ‘The reader will remember that
the heat of the sun draws from the earth and the waters on the
earth a ‘ twofold exhalation’ (cf. * 22> 2-3), which is partly ‘hot-
dry’ and partly ‘hot-moist ’. This plays a part in the formation
of the éuovozepy Of inanimate nature. For it gets imprisoned in
particles of the earth: and thus, gva predominantly ‘ hot-dry’,
contributes to the formation of 7a dépuxrd, and gua predominantly
‘hot-moist’ (particularly when imprisoned in stones, whose
dryness compresses and solidifies it) gives rise to the metals.
When metals liquefy with heat, this is the setting free of the
moisture belonging to the exhalation which contributed to their
formation. | Cf. Meteor. 378%12—» 4, 384> 30-34.

28012. ds... xahkod. dvev vAys is used adjectivally, and_is
equivalent to the un- Aristotelian diAov: cf. * 22% 28-33.

28 20. ddd’. The adversative is used, because the definitions
of the combinable and combination, which follow, show that the
combinable need neither be destroyed nor preserved unaltered,
and that combination is neither composition nor relative to
perception.

28> 21. Spdvuporv. We should have expected ovvévupor: for the
combinable is combinable with a contrasted species of the same

genus, i.e. a contrary information of the same vAy. Cf. * 14% 20,-

* 22> 29-32. But Aristotle does not always use éudévevpoy in the
technical sense in which it is contrasted with ovvévypov. He

A. 10. 328512 — B. 1. 335% 23 189

sometimes uses it in its ordinary significance to mean merely that
‘A has the same name as B’, without implying that the nature
expressed by the name differs in A and B: cf. Bonitz, Jnd. s. v.

The meaning here is that 76 puxrov is relative to something else
which in that relation must also be called puxrév.

28> 22. i... vwos. Combination is that kind of unification
of ‘combinable’ substances (i.e. substances fulfilling the con-
ditions specified in the definition of the ‘combinable’) which
must occur in so far as they have reciprocally ‘altered’ one
another’s qualities in the manner explained.

In this ‘ scientific definition’ of pigs (cf. * 27% 32-34), evwors
is the genus of which pigs is a species. The generic dos
_ (€vwors) is specified, or rendered determinate, by the proximate
cause (é\\owHévrwv) which necessitates its inherence in its com-
mensurate subject (ray puxrav).

B. I

28> 26—352 23. Mept...eipytat. On the connexion of this
section (B. 1-8) with the plan of the work as a whole, see
* 22 1-26. |

It will be remembered that Aristotle propounded two main
questions concerning ‘the so-called elements’ :—viz. (i) Are
Earth, Air, Fire, and Water vead/y ‘elements’? And, if not, (ii) Do
they all come-to-be in the same manner, reciprocally out of one
another: or is one amongst them relatively primary, the others
being derivative forms of it? (cf. * 22> 2-3, *22>3-4). Aristotle
_ answers the first of these questions in B. 1-3, where he maintains
that Earth, Air, Fire, and Water are not really ‘elements’, i.e. not
eternal and unchangeable. They are changing informations of
xpwrn try, distinctively characterized by qualities which belong
to certain primary contrarieties. Strictly speaking, tpwry vAy and
the évayriioers are the real ‘elements ’, i. e. the eternal elementary
conditions of yéveois and @Oopd. Earth, Air, Fire, and Water are
‘primary’ and ‘simple’ Jdodies (for a qualification of this
statement, see * 301-7, * 30b 22): but, as dodies, they presuppose
mpoty vAn and the évavrwoes as their ororyxeta.

The second question is answered in B. 4. None of the ‘simple
bodies’ is prior to the others. They all come-to-be out of one
another. They are phases in a cycle of transformations through
which zpwrn vAy passes.

In B. 5-7 Aristotle’s doctrine of the ‘simple bodies’ is con-

190. COMMENTARY

firmed and further explained. Thus, in B. 5 it is restated, and
Aristotle proves that no ‘simple body’ can be an dpxy of the
others: in B. 6 Empedokles’ general theory of the ‘ elements’ i
criticized : and in B. 7 Aristotle explains how the épuouopepy come-
to-be out of the ‘simple bodies’ by combination—a point left
quite inexplicable by Empedokles. |

Finally, in B. 8 Aristotle establishes that every éynovomepés—and
therefore (in the end) every composite natural substance in the
sublunary world—consists of all four ‘simple bodies’ as its
material constituents.

28527. was... dow. We must identify 7a peraBaddovra
kata pvow with the dvoid copara of the Lower Cosmos, i.e.
with 7a yevvnta Kai POapra. For though contact is predicable of
ra pabnparixa, Aristotle restricted his discussion to apy 4 év tots
voor. And though the heavenly bodies, gwa possessing: an
immanent source of movement, are dvoid cwpara, Aristotle’s
discussion in A. 6 was primarily concerned with vectproca/ contact,
whereas the contact of the otpavos and the Lower Cosmos is
one-sided (cf. * 22> 2-3, * 22> 32-2334). Contact therefore,
as defined in A. 6, is a wafos of the changing natural bodies
within the sublunary world, i. e. of ra yevvyra cat POapra: and the
same restriction applies to action—passion and combination.

28> 28-29. ém...aitiav. Aristotle is referring to A. 1-3,
and particularly to A. 3. Ongualified yéveois and Oopa are.
substantial coming-to-be and passing-away, as distinguished from
change of zafos, i.e. change in any Category other than that of
Substance (cf. *17® 32-34): and the ‘cause’, which Aristotle.
claims to have explained, is rparn vAn (cf. * 184 25-27).

28> 29-31. Spoiws ... attav: cf. 19° 6—20* 7, with the notes.

abtGv, SC. yevérews Kal POopas THs dads. It is noticeable, as
Zabarella points out, that Aristotle makes no mention of his
discussion of avéyou.s in the present summary of the first book.
As we saw (* 2088), avéyous is a waos of the éuwvxa only : and
though the discussion of it is germane to the subject-matter of the
present work, its inclusion is not absolutely necessary.

28> 31-32. ourdv.. . cwpdtwv. Aowov, ‘reliquum est, i.e.
sequitur’ (Zabarella). The discussion of ‘the so-called elements’
does not complete Aristotle’s task, for he has still to treat of the
causes (especially the efficient and final causes) of yéveous and
dOopa. If we are to press the meaning of Aourdv, we must suppose
that the ensuing discussion of the ‘elements’ is ‘ what remains’

B. 1. 328 27-33 191

in order to fulfil the plan which was sketched at 22b1~-5.. Cf.
* 278 31: and, for a similar use of Aouzov, cf. * 20% 8.

The construction of Oewpjoo. with wepi and the accusative is
unusual. Bonitz (Jzd. 32833) professes to quote two-
instances , but the first (Metaph. 1027» 28) is not an instance at
all, since Gewpyoa has an object, and ¢he second (Polit. 1325» 34)
is hardly parallel to the present passage. Philoponos feels the
difficulty, but neither of the solutions, which he suggests, will do.
We must, I suppose, account for the accusative as due to the
desire of avoiding the ugliness and obscurity which the genitive
would here entail.

Ta Kadovpeva oToixeia TOV TwyaTwv might mean ‘illa ex
corporibus quae vocantur elementa’. But Zabarella seems to be
right in interpreting the phrase as ‘quae vocantur elementa
aliorum corporum’. For 7a xaAovpeva orouxeta, see * 22> 1-2.

28 32296. yéveois . .. tooaita. Aristotle proceeds to
summarize and to criticize the erroneous views of his predecessors
concerning ‘ the four simple bodies’ (28> 32—29* 24). He then
states his own theory in outline (2924-6). All perceptible
bodies presuppose Earth, Air, Fire, and Water: but these
themselves presuppose, as their elementary ‘ constitutive moments’,
mpwty vAn and certain évavriudoes (cf. * 29924-— 3). What these
évavtuboeis are, is explained in the next chapter.

28> 32-33. yéveots. . . ToUTwv. Zabarella (who professes to
follow Aquinas and Averroes) interprets ai dice cvvertdcat ovoiat
as ‘corpora mista’ (i.e. Ta dpoopepy), Ta aicOyTa cHpyata as
‘elementa ’, and rovrwy as trav pice cvvertwodv ovo.av.

But the antecedent of rovrwy must surely be ‘the perceptible
bodies ’: there is no reason to restrict the latter to ‘the so-called
elements’: and the phrase ai dice cvveordcar ovoia includes
much more than the dpouopep7.

Thus e.g. in the Aefaph. (1042* 6-11) Aristotle enumerates
certain things ‘which everybody admits to be substances’.
These are ai dvotxai ovoia, and they fall into three groups :—
(i) ‘ Fire, Earth, Water, Air and any other simple bodies’ (ré\Xa ra
ardé oopara). With this group we are not concerned, since the
ovoiat here in question are not ‘simple’, but the products of
natural processes which have brought, and hold, together
a plurality of constituents (dvce ovvecrdoa): (il) ‘the odpavds
and its popia’, i.e. the heavens, their component spheres and
the heavenly bodies which are set in these (cf. e.g. Alexander

192. COMMENTARY

on the Meteorologica, ed: Hayduck, p. 4, |. 24). With-these again
we are not concerned ; for they are dyévyta and a@apra, whereas
Aristotle is here speaking only of those substances of which
-yéveots and fOopd are predicable : finally, (111) ‘the plants and the
animals, and the pédpia of both’. It is these—the organic things
in nature and their popca—to which Aristotle is referring primarily,
if not exclusively. The pdpio include (a) the dovvOera podpra, i. e.
the Suoromep7: and (b) the cvvGera pdpia, or the dévopovopepy, each
of which is composed of two or more different dovopepn. Thus
the pdpia of animals include (1) ‘ the tissues ’—flesh; blood, bone,
&c.—(ii) ‘the organic parts’—e.g. hand, leg, heart, eye—and
(iii) ‘parts’ like the head, the face, &c. (cf. e.g. Hist. Anim.
486% 5-14, de Part. Anim. 640» 17-22).

_ Although the épovopepq are dovvOera (i. e. not composed of two
or more aggregated different constituents), they are not ‘simple’,
but chemical compounds. The four ‘simple bodies’ have fused
and coalesced to form them. Hence they are dice. cvvecréara,
and are included in the otcia of which Aristotle is here speaking.
(For the application of ovvicracOar to the dporopepy, cf. e. g.
Meteor. 384 30 ff, 389525.) It is possible—though on the
whole perhaps improbable—that Aristotle intends the.. phrase
(ai dice ocvverrdoar ovata) to cover also the dporopepy of
inanimate nature, cf. * 28> 12-13.

Now the organisms and their ‘ parts’ are through and through
characterized by the soul or life which is their ‘ form’ (cf. * 21> rg—
22). What comes-to-be, in the yéveo.s of a plant or an animal or of
any of their pdpia, is a “iving-body, a Uiving-tissue, or a “iving-
organ : and the essential and distinctive feature in this phenomenon
is the emergence of a new soul or life, or the emergence of
a new tissue or organ gua contributory to a.new life. Nevertheless
this yéveois is not the coming-to-be of soul dave, but the coming-
to-be of an éuwvyxov cépya. Its indispensable condition is always
the coming-to-be of a new ‘perceptible body’—i.e. the
development of certain perceptible bodily materials to that grade of
complexity at which they are the appropriate matter to be informed

by ¢his soul. Hence Aristotle says here that the yéveous (or the .

Oopa) of every one of the dice cvverrGca oiciat implies, as its
conditio sine gua non, the aic@nra odpara. The foundation of all
the birth and death in the organic world is the yéveois and $9opa
of the aicOyri odpata (cf. e.g. de Caelo 2983 racu yap at
proxi oicia 7) Tdpata ) peta TwpdTov yiyvovrat Kal peyeBdv).

ee en Te

~B. 1. 328 32—3292 5 193

The birth and the death of the organic substances and their
constituent parts (so perhaps we may paraphrase Aristotle’s
doctrine) are not the emergence and the disappearance of
immaterial ‘forms’. These substances are embodied-souls or
forms-in-matter ; and we cannot understand their yéveous or their
Gopd, unless we study the yéveous and the dOopd of their matter.
For their matter is ‘the perceptible bodies’, i.e. a matter itself
‘informed ’, itself the product of development, presupposing more
elementary conditions for its emergence. What we have to do,
therefore, is to trace the lower stages of that development which
culminates in the emergence of the organic substances. We-
must discover what are the dpyai of the aicOyra odpara, i.e.
rom what primary material and formal conditions they result.
Aristotle, as we shall see, reduces all aicOy7ri cépara in the
sublunary world to Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, or to compounds
and composites of these; and regards Earth, Air, Fire, and
Water themselves as resultants of zporn dAy and the two primary
EVAVTLUGELS. : ;

28 33—29° 5. ToUtwy ... mpdypaow. For a_ similar brief’
classification, cf. * 30> 7-21.

The common and erroneous assumption of all the aoe here
quoted is that the underlying material, of which the perceptible
bodies are made, zs ztse/f a body (or bodies) having separate existence.
Thus, e. g., Anaximenes and Diogenes assumed Air as the under-
lying matter, Herakleitos and Hippasos Fire, Anaximander a Jody
(28 35) intermediate between Fire and Air: Parmenides (cf. * 18>
6—7, * 30 13-19) assumed Fire and Earth, Ion Fire, Earth, and
Air, and Empedokles Fire, Earth, Air, and Water. The percep-
tible bodies ought (cf. * 142 6— 8) to be derived by ‘alteration’
from the ‘underlying matter’ if it is a single body, by ‘associa-
tion and dissociation’ if it is two or more bodies. But i” fact the -
pluralists employ both methods of derivation (29% 3-5 ; cf. A, 1 and
the notes).

28535. 4 Te petagd tovtwy, Aristotle is Ft er of Anaxi-
mander : cf. * 324 20-25.

29% I-2. ot 8€... tpitov. Philoponos attributes this view to
the poet Ion of Chios (cf. Diels, pp. 220-222). Aristotle refers to
* it again below : see * 30? 15-17.

29" 5. dpxds kal ororxeta : ‘ originative sources, i, e. elements’.

The term orovxeta is restricted to zmmanent épxai (the immanent
originative sources of a thing’s being), i.e. to vAy, dos, and

2254 O

194 COMMENTARY

orépynoits. The term dpxy includes also ex/ernal “originative
sources, e.g. the primary efficient cause (cf. 24°27). Cf. Diels,
Elementum, p. 24: Metaph. 1013% 7-10, 1070» 22-30.

Aristotle has no quarrel with his predecessors for calling ¢he
primary materials, out of which the perceptible things come-to-
be, ‘originative sources’ (or ‘original reals’) in the sense of
‘elements’. But they were wrong, he thinks, in supposing that
Earth, Air, Fire, and Water (all, or any, of them), or indeed any
perceptible body, were such pvimary materials.

29°6. é& dv: the antecedent is of course Ta zpéara (* 5).

29% 8-14. dN... Siopiopdy. Anaximander and Plato are
selected for special criticism. The other thinkers are sufficiently
refuted by the subsequent exposition of Aristotle’s own theory
which shows that Earth, Air, Fire, and Water are all equally
derivative, since they are all transformations of a prior substratum,

Aristotle’s objection to Anaximander’s azreipov is mo/ that it was
other than Earth, Air, Fire, and Water—for that is true also of
Aristotle’s own porn vAy: but that, being other than these, it
was nevertheless supposed to be a ‘ body ’, i. e. possessed of actual
existence independent of, and separate from, Earth, Air, Fire, and
Water.

29° 10-13. ddvvatov ... dpxyv. Since Anaximander’s ‘ Bound-
less’ is an actual body, it must be characterized by one or the other
of the contrasted qualities forming a ‘ perceptible contrariety ’ (cf.
e.g. * 20b 16-17). It must e.g. be light or heavy, cold or hot.
In other words (cf. Introd. § ro, and * 29 7-30 29), it must be
Earth, Air, Fire, or Water. |

In 29% 11 aic@yrns (HJ) is clearly right. Aristotle could not
have written aic@yrov (E), 76 aicOyrdv (F), or aio Onrov dv (L), since
that would imply that Anaximander himself spoke of his dzreipov
as ‘perceptible’. ae

29° 13-24. as... émimeda eitvat. Aristotle has already referred
more than once to Plato’s attempt in the Zimaeus to construct the
perceptible bodies out of planes, i.e. out of two typet of right-
angled triangles: cf. * 152 29-33, * 15> 31, * 16% 2-4, "a5? 19-25.
He now attacks Plato’s statements about the trodoyy rdons yevé
cews, and its relation to the elementary triangles and to the four
simple bodies, on the ground that ‘they are not based on any pre-
cisely-articulated conception’ (ovdéva exer Swopicpdv, cf. 23% 22
and 34? 21).

The perceptible things, Plato had said, are mere ‘ imitations ’
or ‘images’ of the real things—the intelligible Forms. And it is

B. I. 329% 6-24 195

the very nature of an ‘image’ to require a something zz which it
‘comes-to-be’ and thus obtains affarent subsistence (cf. Zimaeus
52c). This something, 7 which the ‘images’ come-to-be, is
accordingly postulated as a necessary pre-condition of the yeveors of
the physical Cosmos (ib. e. g. 52 d): and Plato describes its nature
in various ways—mostly metaphorical, and partly (it would seem)
irreconcilable with one another. Thus he speaks of it as ‘ the
Place’—the empty Space or Extensity ‘in which’ the perceptible
things appear (cf. 52a, 52d): as ‘the receptacle of all coming-to-
be, as it were its Nurse’ (49a, 52d), or ‘its Mother’ (51a): as
‘a something which receives all bodies’ (50b wepi tis ra rdvra
dexonevns odpata pioews): ‘a thing invisible and without shape,
omnirecipient’ (51a dvdparov <«idds tu Kal dpoppov, zavdexés).
Such statements naturally suggest that ‘the Omnirecipient’
xopilerar TGV oTo.xeiwy, i.e. that it is an entity having a being of
its own, separate from, and in independence of, Earth, Air, Fire,
and Water and the perceptible bodies generally (29215 Trav
atouxeiwy, 1.q. Tov Kadovpévwov ororxeiwv, Cf. #16). We think of
it as a Mirror in which the reflections appear, or a Frame in
which the copies of the edn are held. But Plato says other
things about 76 zavdexés which imply a quite different view of its
relation to the perceptible bodies. For he speaks of this
omnirecipient formless something as an éxpayetov—a modifiable
lump or mass—which is changed and transfigured by the incoming
images of the real intelligible things, and thus 7/se/f appears with
different shapes and qualities (50c: for the meaning of éxpyayetor,
cf. Zheaetetus 191 c with Campbell’s note). And he compares it,
in its relation to Earth; Air, Fire, and Water, with a lump of gold
in its relation to the golden things of various shapes which may
be fashioned out of it. Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, he insists,
are mere passing transformations of this something, which always
retains its receptivity unchanged—just as this and that figured
work of the goldsmith are such and such evanescent modifications
of gold, which always remains ‘ gold’, however its shape may vary
(49 a-50 b). |

If we are to press this analogy, the zavdexés is, it would seem,
not only the receptacle zz which all the perceptible bodies appear,
but also the stuff of which they are fashioned or out of which they
are made. And it is now no longer clear whether we are to
attribute to it a ‘being’ separate from the orovxeta which are its
transformations.
| ) 02

196 COMMENTARY

29% 15-24. od8€ . . . émimeda elvar. Plato, Aristotle. has just
complained (®13-15), does not explain whether the Omni-
recipient is a continent subsisting in independence of the Earth,
Air, Fire,and Water which ‘appear’ in it ; or whetherit is a stmff,
logically distinguishable from, but existing only in, and as, those
changing figurations which are called the ‘elements’. He now
complains that Plato makes no use of the Omnirecipient in his
theory of the yeveovs of the ‘elements’. He compared it to the
gold, out of which the goldsmith’s works are fashioned: and this
comparison implies that the zavdexés is a stuff underlying, and prior
to, the ‘elements’. Nevertheless (* 21 dAAa, i.e. in spite of his
comparison of the zavdexés with the gold), when he comes to treat
of the yeveors of the ‘elements’, he resolves them into triangular
planes, without any hint as to how the latter are derived from
the trodoyy. Yet it is impossible to identify the todoyy or the
7Onvn with the planes.

In this passage ® 17-21 (kairou. . . exacrov eivac) is a parenthesis,
in which Aristotle criticizes Plato’s use of the analogy of the
gold: the rest forms a single argument, in which ® 21-24 (dAAG

. érimeda etvat) justifies the opening assertion that Plato ‘makes
no use’ of the zavdexés. |

The term troxeiyevov (29216) is not used by Plato in the
passage in question: Aristotle infers that this is in effect his
meaning from the analogy of the gold and from the language
in the context ( Zimaeus, 49 a—50 b).

The words évtwv . . . dvaddvow (*® 22-23) suggest a double
reproach: for Aristotle has already urged (a) that it is impossible
to construct ‘solids’, i.e. dvouwd ooépara, out of planes, and
(b) that it is unreasonable, if you analyse solids into their contain-
ing planes, not to complete the mathematical analysis by
resolving the planes into lines and the lines into their terminal
points (cf. * 15> 31, with the references to the de Cae/o there given).

In @ 23 Aristotle adds kat tiv vAnv thy zpérynv, because Plato’s
tiOnvn or brotoxy fulfils in the Ztmaeus a function analogous to
that of zpwryn vAn in Aristotle’s theory of the yéveows of the per-
ceptible things.

29°16. mpotepov : cf. preceding note. Plato would presumably
say that the metaphor of the gold must not be pressed, and that
his Omnirecipient is ‘ prior’ to the ‘ elements’ only in the sense
in which Aristotle’s zpérn vAn is ‘prior’ to its informations—1. e.
logically prior. There is no trace of zpdérepov in Philoponos.

ba aera Sree

B. I. 329% 15-21 197

29° 17-21. kaito. . . .. €kagtov eivat. Plato’s analogy is not
precise. For you can call a product by the name of that ‘out of
which’ it has developed, only if it has resulted by the ‘ alteration’
of a persistent perceptible substratum. If, e. g., the cold thing has
become hot, the thing persists and has merely ‘altered’ from one
aic@nrov 7aOos to its contrary: hence the product (the hot thing)
is still called a ‘thing’. Similarly, if the gold persists through the
goldsmith’s manipulations as a perceptible substratum, which
‘alters’ e.g. from triangular to square or circular, you can call
the products ‘gold’, But Earth, Air, Fire, and Water come-to-be
and pass-away, and are not merely the ‘alterations’ of a persistent
perceptible saudstratum. WHence, if they come-to-be out of the
mavoexés, they cannot be called by its name, as the golden figures
can be called, each of them, ‘gold’. Yet Plato insists (cf.

_Timaeus 49 d-50 c) that if we are shown a work of the goldsmith, -

and asked what it is, far the safest answer (yaxp@ zpos dAnOevav
daopadeorarov) is to say ‘It is gold’: and that similarly, if we see
what is commonly called ‘fire’, and are asked what it is, we
ought to answer ‘It is the Omnirecipient ’.

Aristotle calls attention to this distinction of linguistic usage
more than once: cf. Phys. 2453 ff., Metaph. 1033°5 ff., 1049
18 ff. |

When a thing has come-to-be ‘ out of’ x, it is never called x,
though in certain cases it may be called by an adjective derived

from «x (éxedvwvov, though not éxeivo). Thus, e. g.,a man or a plant

is not called that ‘out of which’ it has come-to-be, nor by
an adjective derived from its name: and a house or a statue is
not called zAiw@o. or Aor, though they are called wAwOivyn and
évdvos respectively.

If, however, there is ddAoiwors (and not yéveors), the result
is called by the name of the swbst¢ratum which has ‘altered’. Thus,
e. g., if a sick man has recovered his health, we speak of him as

‘a man’ or ‘a healthy man’.

The term aAdAotwors, according to Aristotle’s strict usage, is
limited to the change of za@yrixai wovdrytes Kal 7é6y, and does
not include change of oxjpa Kat poppy (cf. * 198-10). Hence
the épya fashioned out of gold are not strictly products of ‘altera-
tion’, and cannot rightly be called ‘gold’, but only ‘golden’. If,
then, d&AXotwors (29% 19) is to be taken strictly, Plato is being
criticized (a) for confusing the yéveors (i.e. the rotnous) of the
golden things with an ‘alteration’ of gold: and consequently (b)

a

198 COMMENTARY

for supposing that the correct account e.g. of a golden statue is to
say ‘It is gold’: and finally (c) for extending this confusion,
and the consequent error of terminology, to the ‘elements’,
which —even on Plato’s own theory—are the results of a yéveots.

But Aristotle may possibly be using adAoiwors more loosely, to
cover any change in thé Category of Quality. If so, addoiwors
would include change of shape (cf. * 19 12-14), and the works
fashioned by the goldsmith would be results of aAAotwors. Plato
would then be criticized for extending a terminological usage,
which is correct in the example of the gold and the works
fashioned out of it, to an instance of yéveous, where it is no longer
applicable.

29° 24-53. tpets . . . petaBdddXovow. Aristotle now outlines
his own view. Earth, Air, Fire, and Water are the primary
perceptible bodies. But, as perceptible bodies, they are yevvyTa Kat
@Gapra, and their yeveors presupposes the same fundamental
conditions—-the same apyai—as are presupposed by the yéveous of
any and every perceptible body.

The whole subject has been thoroughly discussed in the Physzes
(A. 6-9), and the épyaf have there been accurately defined and
distinguished from one another (29% 27 diwpiorar. . . dxpiBéorepor).
The results of the discussion in the Physics were used above,
17> 13 ff.: cf. * 1714-18, * 17> 29, * 18% 23-25.

The ultimate presuppositions of the yéveous of any and every
perceptible body are (i) apaéry vAy and (ii) a contrariety of
qualities for which the td is the substratum. This second
presupposition is often expressed by Aristotle in a different
manner, so as to bring out the negative ‘moment’ implied in
yeveois. If a body comes-to-be, the substratum passes from
a formed-state to a contrarily-formed-state: but the initial formed-
state is at the same time the orépyots of the form of the new
(emerging) body. And the distinctive feature of a yéveous is
the coming-to-be of a positive something, where previously it was
not. Hence the second presupposition of yéveous is an etdos with
its contrasted orépyots. |

These dpxai of yéveors (it is all-important to remember) are not
in any sense actually existent things. They are not rudimentary
stages of a temporal development of the Cosmos, antecedent
in time to the emergence of perceptible bodies. No doubt
Aristotle’s language is at times ambiguous and misleading. But
in the main he is clear (at least in the present work) that these

B. I. 329% 24—32 199

dpxai are the /ogical, not the temporal, presuppositions. They are
’ the indispensable ultimate ‘moments’ which abstracting analysis
forces us to recognize as logically presupposed in the yéveous of
any and every perceptible body.

Hence Aristotle is careful to insist that his zpary bAn is not
xXwpiory, like e. g. Anaximander’s dzreipov (cf. * 29% 8-14). What
exists is never vAn bare, but always formed dAn: i.e. always tAn
along with certain qualities which render it a determinate per-
ceptible body. What exists is a substratum which, being e.g.
actually-hot, is therefore also potentially-cold. In other words,
Aristotle’s tAx is od xwpiory, GAN’? del per’ évavtudoews (29% 25-26),
Or dxwpiotos pev broKepevy 88 trois évavrious (29% 30-31).

And the same applies, mutatis mutandis, to the other dpyy of
yeveors. The opposition of «0s and orépyois, which marks the
terminus ad quem and the terminus a quo of the two-sided process
(the yeveous of one thing and the $@opa of another), is clearly the
result of a J/ogical analysis. And even the évavruioes—i. e.
the pairs of contrasted perceptible qualities—have no ‘ existence’,
except as qualifying the substratum.

‘The Hot and the Cold’, ‘The Dry and the Moist’, conceived
in abstraction from the swéstvatum which is hot-dry, hot-moist,
cold—dry or cold—moist, are simply one of the two indispensable
‘moments’ in the constitution of the actual things—the other
indispensable ‘moment’ being the substratum conceived in dis-
tinction from them. What actually exists is the qualified sub-
stratum: i.e. (if we take it in its most rudimentary form) one
or other of the four ‘ primary’ or ‘ simple” bodies.

29° 26. é€ fis. The antecedent of js is tAnv (#24), not évav-
Tdoews (* 26). :

29% 27. avtay, SC. THs Ans Kal THS evavTLMTEWs.

29° 27-29. ot piv... todtwy. ‘Nevertheless we must give
a detailed explanation of the primary bodies as well, since they
too are similarly derived from the matter.’

The account in the P&ysics was general, applying to the yeveots
of any and every perceptible body. Aristotle now proposes to
apply it in particular to the yéveois of the primary perceptible
bodies.

29° 29-32. dpxiv.. . dupoiv, The parenthetical clause (* 31-
32 ovre ... ducoiv) justifies the assumption of a third something
in addition to the two contraries as their substratum. We must
reckon zpérn tAn as an originative source and as primary,

200 © COMMENTARY

because the contraries a/one cannot serve as an dpyy, since they
presuppose Ay as their substratum if they are to act or suffer
action. Cf. Physics, e.g. 189221 —» 3, 191% 4-5, &c.

29° 32-35. @ote . . . Toradta. Aristotle’s language here is
misleading, because it suggests ¢hree successive stages in the
development of the perceptible bodies. But in fact (cf. * 29% 24-
b 3) neither mporn vAn nor the évavridces ‘exist’. They do not
precede the ‘ primary’ bodies in time, but are abstract ‘moments’
logically presupposed in their being.

29% 35-1. taita . . . GAAnAa. This clause siete ® 34-35
(zpirov 8 dn). Earth, Air, Fire, and Water; since they change
into one another, are composite of matter and form: i.e. they
presuppose vAy and évayriwors, and are therefore reckoned as an
apxn of the perceptible bodies only in the ¢hzrd place.

29) 1-2. odx ds... ddNotwors: cf. 14> 15-26.

292-3. at 8. . . petaBddAdouow. The contrarieties, as con-
trasted with ‘the primary bodies’, do not change (cf. e. g. 22> 16-
18), and are therefore rightly reckoned as dépxaé and placed before
‘the primary bodies’ in Aristotle’s list.

293-4. ddAX . . . dpxds; ‘Nevertheless even so the question
remains : What sorts of contrarieties, and how many of them, are to
be accounted “ originative sources” of body?’ The use of és for
ovrws is rare in Aristotle: but cf. de Caelo 30224. I can make
nothing of Bekker’s reading (kai ws owparos). It seems best to
read the sentence as a question, to supply évayrwwoes as the noun
to which wovas kai réoas refer, and to take dpyas as predicate.

B. 2

29° 7-——30* 29. “Ewet . . . tavtas. In this chapter Aristotle
establishes that the évavtuces, which the ‘simple bodies’ pre-
suppose as one of their ‘ constitutive moments’, are Depy.dv—yvypov
and gypdv-typév. As we shall see in Chapter 3, each of the simple
bodies (Earth, Air, Fire, and Water) is distinctively characterized
by Geppov or Yvxpdv coupled with éypdv or dypdv.

The reader will remember that neither zpéry vAy nor the
évavtimoes are anything but ‘moments’ abstracted by logical
analysis (cf. * 2924-3). The évavriuioes therefore are couples
of contrasted gualities, not of contrasted gualia: i.e. properly-
speaking they are Oepydrns—yuxpdrns, typérns—Enporns (cf. e.g
29% 34, > 11-12), and not Oepydrv-yrxpov, éypdv—Enpsv (cf

eaperae eee

+ a*

B. Is 3297/32 2+ 2, 329 13 "201

e.g. 29>18+20). The neuter adjectives, especially when the
article is prefixed, suggest the concretely qualified matter, which
alone has actual existence: they suggest ‘ the hot-stuff’, ‘the cold-
stuff’, &c., i.e. the guavia instead of the abstract gualities. But
though Aristotle is no doubt thinking of actual constituents, he
defines them ix respect to their qualities. He is speaking of
qgualia—of qualified stuffs; but he is attending to the gualtities
and trying to determine these in abstraction from the stuff which
they qualify. On the whole, therefore, I have thought it best to
speak throughout of ‘elementary guva/ities’, and to render e. g. 76
Geppov by ‘the hot’ rather than by ‘the hot stuff’.

From another point of view, the term ‘quality’ is somewhat
misleading. For it is clear from Aristotle’s definitions that the hot,
the cold, the dry, and the moist are in fact certain characteristic
powers of acting and susceptibilities to action. Aristotle himself
constantly refers to them as duvdpers (cf. e. g. Meteor. 378" 29 and
34, 379" 11, &c.). We might therefore be tempted to call them
‘elementary forces’, instead of ‘elementary qualities’ (cf. Dr.
William Ogle’s note in his translation of the de Part. Anim.
646°16). But ‘force’ would not naturally include ‘suscepti-
bilities to action’ (the dvvdjers wabyrixa’). After much hesitation
I have decided to use the term ‘quality’, which has at least one
merit—viz. that it emphasizes the important fact that these évayria
qualify zpaérn brn and thus constitute the distinctive characteristics
of the primary bodies.

The meaning of Oepydv, Yvyxpov, typov, Enpov—and of the other
tangible qualities discussed in the present chapter—must of course
be gathered from Aristotle’s definitions. It is not possible to find
any English terms which are precisely equivalent. I use the
terms ‘hot’, ‘cold’, ‘moist’, ‘dry’, as mere conventional symbols.
“Moist-dry ’, as we shall see, is a most inadequate rendering of
bypov—Enpov : and so also is ‘ fluid-solid’, which Dr. Ogle (I. c.)
prefers. And ‘hot—cold’ is defective as a rendering of Oepudv—
Wuxpov, in that it conveys no hint of the feature on which Aristotle
lays stress. Cf. * 29> 26-30, * 29> 30-32.

29° 7-13. “Emel . . . otouxetov. We are to determine what ‘ quali-
tative differences’ constitute the distinctive forms of perceptible
body as such, i. e. differentiate perceptible body zz generad into its
primary irreducible species. We must therefore look amongst
the qualities which characterize a// perceptible bodies. These
are the ‘tangible’ qualities—those discriminated by the sense of

a

202 COMMENTARY

touch. For all perceptible bodies possess at least some of the
‘tangible’ qualities, whilst not all exhibit the further qualities
which are the objects of vision, hearing, taste, and smell. Cf.
de Anima, e.g. 423 27-29 which refers to the present chapter.

29g. cidn ... wotodow: ‘constitute “forms” and “ originative
sources ” of body’.

The qualities which belong to certain évavrwwoes constitute
the ‘forms’ of perceptible bodies, gua informing mpéry vAy.
Aristotle adds kat dpyds, because we are looking for contrary
qualities which are the forms of the primary perceptible bodies,
and which are therefore ‘ originative sources’ of perceptible body
in general : cf. 29% 33-34, 29> 3-4.

29>10-11. kat’... évavtiwow: ‘for the primary bodies are
differentiated by a contrariety, and a contrariety of tangible
qualities’. :

The subject of duadepovor has to be supplied from the context.
It is—as Philoponos rightly explains—ra odpata ra mpOta, dv Tas
apxas Cyrotpev.

The primary bodies, as Zabarella reminds us, must be charac-
terized by contrary qualities, since they must be capable of com-
bining: and combinables must be reciprocally zoyruda and
ma@yrixd, and therefore also évavria (cf. e. g. * 22> 1-26, * 23 1—
24> 24, * 288 18-31). And they must be differentiated by sangzble
qualities, because as perceptible bodies they must possess ¢angible
qualities, even if—as ¢he simplest of bodies—they possess no others
(cf. * 29> 7-13).

29" 13. movet ororxetov. Aristotle sometimes calls the elemen-
sd qualities orovxeia (cf. e. g. 30% 30): but ororyetoy here means

een body’, i.e. one of the ‘so-called elements’ (cf.
22> y—2), |

None of the contrary qualities, except those belonging to the
primary contrarieties of touch, ‘makes’ a ‘ primary body’, i.e.
constitutes it as its form (for this sense of rovet, cf. 29>9
Towvcw).

29 14-16. kairo... . mpdrepov. Aristotle here anticipates and
answers a possible objection. Vision is ‘purer’ than touch (cf.
£th, Nic. 1176* 1): it is the ‘clearest’ of all the senses (Prob/.
886" 35): and if touch is the most indispensable sense, in that
life is impossible without it, vision contributes to the comforts
and refinements of life, and in particular helps us towards
the attainment of knowledge (cf. e.g. de Anima 435» 19-25, de

B. 2. 3299-18 | 203

Sensu 436” 12—437% 18, Metaph. 980% 24-27). Vision therefore,
it may be said, is Avior to touch, in the sense in which the more
perfect, and the more valuable and desirable, is Azzor to the less
(cf. e.g. Metaph. 1050° 3 ff., 1077% 19-20, Categ. 14> 4-8). But
if so, the contrarieties which are the subject-matter or ‘ objects’
of vision are, similarly, Azior to those which are the ‘objects’
of touch (cf., for this sense of tzoxeipevov, e.g. de Anima
42514, 426 8-11, Rhet. 1355> 28-32: Bonitz, Jud. 798» 60—
799" 27).

Aristotle does not discuss the question of fact. He is ready to
admit that the qualities which make a body visible may very likely
be ‘naturally prior’ to those which render it tangible. But this
fact, if it be a fact, is (he urges) irrelevant. For we are looking
for qualities which constitute the forms of perceptible, i. e. tangible,
bodies as such—dqualities, therefore, which belong to tangible
bodies fer se. Now the qualities, which are the objects of vision,
do not belong to tangible bodies Aer se, but caf érepov.

Aristotle discusses in the de Anima (418° 26 ff.) what 76 éparov
(the tzoxeiuevov of vision) is. As the discussion proceeds, it
appears that the ‘object of vision’ includes (a) colours, whiche
are seen in light, and (b) @ xameless quality, which is present
in certain things and causes them to be seen in the dark, though
they are not thus seen in the light. It is clear from Aristotle’s
instances (pvKys, Képas, Kehadal ixOvwv Kat Aemides Kal dPOadrpoi, de
Anima 419%5) that he is thinking partly of what we should call
‘phosphorescent’ objects. I do not know any passage where he
explains exactly what this ‘nameless quality’ is, which causes
these various things to gleam in the dark: but colour (that sub-
division of 74 épardév which is seen in light) is discussed in the

de Sensu (439* 18 ff.) and defined (439> 11-12) as 76 rod diadhavois
- &v odpare Gpicpeve répas. Colour, then, it is clear, belongs to the
tangible body, in so far as that contains 76 dvadayvés in itself: and
70 duaaves (cf. de Anima 418" 4 ff.) is neither darév nor inherent
in the body gua dzrov.

29> 16-18. attav . . . évavtiudcers. The qualities which dif-
ferentiate the primary bodies are, as we have seen, those which
belong to the contrarieties of touch. But some of the latter
are derivative: our next task therefore is ‘to distinguish which
amongst the tangible differences and contrarieties are primary’.

I have followed HJ and T in omitting zpérov in ®17: the
passage is certainly better without it.

204 ‘COMMENTARY

29 18-20. eiot . . . Nerv. All the qualities defined in this
chapter (the reader will observe) are defined by reference to
perception. Thus, e.g., hard and soft are the incompressible
and compressible estimated by our sense of touch, not the
absolutely impenetrable and its contrary. Cf. e.g. Meteor. 382
17-21.

The omission of zv«vdv—pavov from this list of the contrarieties
of touch is to be explained by the fact that Aristotle denied the
existence of dense and rare in the popular sense: i.e. he denied

- the existence of atoms and interspaces, and rejected all cognate

conceptions of the constitution of matter (cf. * 212 5-9). Hence,
though he still employs the terms zu«vév—pavdv, he treats
the contrariety as a form of zayv-Aertov (cf. de Caelo 303»
22-25), or again as a form of Bapv-xotdov (cf. Phys. 217°
II-I2). :

29° 20-24. tovrwy ... &AAnda. The primary bodies combine
(ucyvutat) to form the éuovopepy, and—as we shall see in Chapter
4—they are transformed into one another (weraBaAXe eis dAAyAa).
Hence (cf. * 29 10-11) they must be reciprocally wourixa Kat
ma@yrixa : and the qualities which constitute them must express
powers of acting and susceptibilities to action. |

Now, although Earth, Air, Fire, and Water are all ‘light’ or
‘heavy’ (cf. Introd. § 10), and although all bodies which possess
‘weight’ or ‘lightness’ are iz fact wownrika. kat rabyrixa, it is not
gua light or gua heavy that they act upon, and are acted upon
by, one another (cf. * 2329-10). Hence the contrariety ‘light-
heavy ’ is not constitutive of the primary bodies. 7

According to. Philoponos (p. 214, ll. 31 ff.), ‘ rough-smooth ’,
which is not expressly eliminated in what follows, is to be rejected
for the same reason.

2922, movety te étepov. For the construction, cf. e. g. Mezeor.
385% 2-4 Acvxdv yap Kal... Oeppov Kal Yuxpov 7G woetv te SVvacGa
tHv aicOnoiv éott.

29 24-26. Seppdv ...déyerat. (i) Hot—cold and dry—moist are
reciprocally active and passive in the sense that the sudbs/ratum,
which is hot, is eo zfso both alterative of, and liable to be altered
by, that which is cold; whilst the substratum, which is moist,
is eo tpso both alterative of the dry, and subject to its action.
Each of these four qualities, within its own contrariety, is both
active and passive in relation to its contrary. The hot and the
cold, gua contraries informing the same matter, act and react on

B. 2. 329>.18-26 208

one another, and are each in turn both agent and patient. Each
tends to assimilate its contrary to itself, and to be assimilated
by it: and the result of this reciprocal action—-passion is the
tempering of both qualities and their fusion in an intermediate
quality, which is /ess-cold-and-more-hot than the original cold and
less-hot-and-more-cold than the original hot (cf. e. g. * 27> 22-31,
* 288 29-31, * 34> 8-16).

By a similar reciprocal action—passion, the moist and the dry
tend towards an intermediate or tempered state, in which ¢he dry
is more pliable and more cohesive by admixture of te moist. But
this tempering of the dry by the moist requires for ¢¢s completion
the ‘active operation ’ of the hot—cold (or of the tempered-hot) in
a sense which we have now to consider.

(ii) For although the reciprocal action—passion of the qualities
within each contrariety is an essentfal condition of the emergence
of a new éuovopepés, another kind of action-passion, 7z which the
hot-cold is agent and the dry-moist ts patient, is also involved : and
it is to this second kind of action—passion, where one contrariety
is active and the other contrariety passive, that Aristotle is
referring in the present passage (cf. Journal of Philology, No. 57,
pp. 83-86). The whole subject is worked out in Meteor. A with
great elaboration: I must content myself here with a brief outline,

_ which will be sufficient for the understanding of the present

sentence.

Aristotle maintains that everywhere, if we look at the physical
phenomena, we shall see heat and cold functioning as active
and controlling forces. They reduce the materials—whether
these be the same in kind, or of different kinds—to definite
shape, they cause them to grow together into a unity, and they

introduce change into them. Moistening and drying, hardening

and softening, are the work of heat and cold. On the other
hand, the materials, which submit to these operations, are every-
where the dry or the moist or the things compounded of dry and
moist (AZeteor. 378 10-20). Hence all birth and all death—the
coming-to-be and passing-away of every dpovopepés in a plant or
animal, and thus indirectly of every plant or animal itself—are to
be ascribed to the operation of the hot-cold on the dry—moist.

.Birth—the coming-to-be of any dovomepés in animate things—is,

from this point of view, a change produced in the passive duvdmers
(i.e. a development of the dry—moist, which is the material) by
the agency of the hot-cold, i.e. the tempered-hot (cf. e.g.

206 — COMMENTARY

Zabarella, de Misti Gen. et Inter. i, ch. 5). When the hot and
cold are present in due proportion, they control the matter (the
dry—moist) and bring the épovopepes into being (Meteor. 378° 28—
379* I).

Death and the processes which lead to it—withering in plants,
senile decay in animals—are to be ascribed to the failure of this
control. For just as the hot-cold gave definite shape and con-
sistency to the dry by tempering it with the moist, and thus
brought the dpovomepés into being, so, as the inner heat grows
less, dissolution sets in. The inner cold predominates over the
inner heat: and the heat of the environment (i.e. in the
environing ‘element’ of the living thing) overcomes the now
enfeebled inner heat (cf. * 23%7-10). It is drawn out, and with
it the inner moisture also evaporates. Moreover, when the inner
heat is gone or enfeebled, the living thing has lost the power of
drawing in fresh moisture from the environment, and of digesting
its food (cf., on the inner heat, * 2048, * 20% 34-214 29, * 228
10-13, * 36> 8-10). Hence the animate thing (e. g. the éyovopepés)
passes to its natural end. It putrefies, becoming first mozs¢, and
finally—as the moisture evaporates with the vanishing inner
heat—dry. This putrefaction (o7js) is the natural end of all
animate duovoyepy and of the organisms to which they belong.
They all collapse in the end into yj Kat Kompos (Meteor. |
379° 3-26). |

Thus in the coming-to-be and passing-away of an animate
dpotopepes, two of the four elementary qualities (viz. the dry and
the moist) are par excellence ‘matter’: for their rdle is purely
‘passive’. The other two (viz. the hot and the cold) are ‘active’,
either to form and mould, or to dissolve and destroy. The
function of ¢he cold is apparently subsidiary to that of the hot. It
is ‘active’ either gua tempering the hot, or—in the process of
dissolution—gvwa assisting the heat of the environment to overcome
the inner heat, and thus to wrest the dry—moist from its control
(cf. Zabarella, l.c.: JdZeteor. 3826-10). In order to prevent
a possible misunderstanding, the reader may be reminded that
the material constituents of every épo.opepés are the four ‘ primary
bodies’ (cf. 34> 31—35% 9), which are distinctively characterized
each by a different couple of the four elementary qualities (cf.
* 29" 24—b 3, * 30% 30—31°6). It is these four primary bodies
which gua hot and cold are par excellence ‘active’ and gua moist
and dry are ‘ passive’, and therefore par excellence ‘matter’, in the

B.. 2. 329 24-30 207

generation and dissolution of the éuouopepq. Although, therefore,
Aristotle attributes efficient operations to the hot-cold in the
Meteorologica, their action is not external like that of an ‘efficient
cause’ proper. It is an ‘immanent’ action—an action exerted
by the material constituents of the éuovopepa.

Not only birth and death, not only the coming-to-be and the
passing-away of the animate dpovomepy, but all kinds of natural
processes within the already subsistent compound natural things
are ascribed by Aristotle to the active operations of the hot-cold
on the dry—moist. Thus (cf. Meteor. 379> 1o—381> 22) he
attributes to feat més and all its sub-forms, viz. zrézavots
(ripening) and the nameless natural processes corresponding to,
and imitated by, eyors (boiling) and drryows (baking). Similarly
he attributes to cold arapia and its sub-forms (dmdrys, padvors,
orarevors), i. €. failures in natural development corresponding, each
to each, to the successes effected by heat in ‘digesting’,
‘ripening’, and in the natural operations analogous to ‘boiling’
and ‘ baking’,

29> 26—go0. Oeppov... wy Sudpuda. The characteristic function
of the hot and the cold, by which Aristotle here defines them, is
that of dvinging together and uniting. (i) The ot ‘associates’
things of the same kind, and if it also ‘dissociates’, that is
a secondary function : for in bringing together the homogeneous,
it incidentally eliminates the heterogeneous (cf. also de Caelo
307* 31-5). If e.g. wine be heated in a closed vessel, the heat
will collect all the earthy particles at the bottom and all the
vaporous. particles at the top. (ii) The cold ‘associates’
homogeneous and heterogeneous things alike. If e.g. water
freezes right through, the cold will bring, and hold, together
everything which was contained in it—bits of wood, straws,
animalculae, &c. (cf. Zabarella and Philoponos, ad /oc.).

One of the functions ascribed to heat and cold in the
Meteor. is the causing homogeneous and heterogeneous things
‘to grow together’ (378>15 cupdvovca: see preceding note).
In other passages (384> 24-26, 388% 23-25, 3904) the work
of the hot and the cold in the constitution of the duovopep7 is
summarized as a ‘thickening and solidifying’ (zaydvovra kal
myyvivta Tovirat THv épyaciav airov). But, consistently with
Aristotle’s general view of the effect of contraries, r7éis as well as
més 1s ascribed to these forces. For the hot dissolves what has
been solidified by cold (we may think e.g. of fire melting ice and

208 COMMENTARY

wax), and the cold dissolves what has been solidified by-heat (e. g.
water, gua cold, dissolves soda and salt): cf. Meteor. 382» 3o—
383° 17, and below, * 30% 4-7.

2927. gaci. Cf. 3623-4. The people in question were
probably Fythagoreans : cf. * 36% 1-12. |
29° 30-32. bypév . . . 8ucdpiotov Sé. The ‘passive’ qualities
are defined as (a) that orice is readily adaptable to the shape of
‘its continent, since it is not determinable by any characteristic
outline of its own—ré typdv (cf. 28% 35 — 4): and (b) that which
is readily determinable by its own characteristic outline, and is

therefore not easily adaptable in shape—ro €npov.

The same definitions are assumed below (cf. * 34> 34—35* 3)
and in the Aeteor. (cf. e. g. 360% 23, 378" 23-25). The typdv and
the éypov are in fact complementary to one another, each serving
the other as a kind of glue: for though the éypdv is eddpiorov
oixetw pw, the cause of its getting and keeping its own shape is
the éypov which is admixed with it (Meteor. 381" 29 ff.).

It is clear that ‘moist’ and ‘dry’ are quite inadequate
renderings of typév and pov. I have retained them, partly
because of the tradition, but mainly because there are no alterna-
tives more satisfactory. Dr. Ogle prefers ‘fluid’ and ‘ solid’
(cf. * 29>7—30%29). But though ‘fluid’ applies, like typdv, to ©
Air as well as to Water, ‘solid’ is clearly inapplicable to Fire,
which (according to Aristotle’s doctrine) is Oeppov Kat Enpov.
Moreover, ‘solid’ is a useful term to translate 76 weryyds, which -
(as we shall see) is a subordinate form of 76 éypdv proper.

29> 32-34. 73... todrwy. For the omission of rpayv—Aciov, see
* 29> 20-24. The words xai ai ddA duadopai probably refer not
to tpaxv—Aciov, but to the varieties of Enpdv-tiypdév: cf. * 30%
12-24.

Since Aristotle claims (30% 24-25) to have reduced all the other -
tangible differences to the first four, tovrwv (29> 34) perhaps
includes hot and cold as well as dry and moist. It is true that
in what follows nothing is said of hot and cold: Aristotle derives
fine and coarse, viscous and brittle, and hard and ‘soft from the
moist and dry. But Zabarella seems to be right in suggesting that
they are in fact modifications of the moist and the dry, produced
in them by the action of the hot and the cold: cf. the follow-
ing notes.

29> 34—30" 4. éwet...énpod. 7d Aexrov is pervasive (cf.
Meteor. 365" 33-35) and expansive (cf. e. g. de Caelo 303° 22-29,

B. 2. 329 27-3302 7 209

304 30-31: as we saw, * 29>18-z20, Aristotle connects pavéy—
muxvov With Aerrdév-raxv). Hence it tends to ‘fill up’ any
vessel which may contain it, 1. e. it is dvarAnortixov, and this shows
that it is closely connected with 76 typdv. Since the hot is said
to be the cause of rarefaction, and the cold of condensation (de
Gen. Anim. 783%37-%2; and cf. below, 30% 11-13), we may
perhaps infer that Aerrév—7axv are derivative forms of iypév—Enpov
produced by the agency of the hot and the cold respectively.

3071-3. Aemropepés ... Torodrov. If the text is sound, the
argument seems to be that just as 7o typdv is dvamrAnotiKov
because it follows the outline of the vessel containing it, so 7d
Aerrov 18 dvamrAnorikdv, because, owing to the fineness (i.e. the
smallness) of its parts, it leaves no cranny of the containing
receptacle unfilled.

Aristotle identifies 76 Xexrdv with 7d emrojepés (cf. Bonitz, Znd.
4276-10), and the latter with 76 puxpopepés.

In * 3 rovodrov, 1. q. Toodtov wore dAOv GAov arrecOar: ‘such as
to be in contact with its continent, whole with whole’. This
is only another way of saying that it is rovotrov Gore dKxoAovbely 7d
arropeva (cf. 29> 35-%1), i.e. ‘such as to follow the outline of
the continent which is in contact with it’.

30° 4-7. wad . . . dypdrntos. On 7d ydicypov, cf. * 28> 4.
The following further information may be gathered from the
Meteor. (1) Viscous liquids, though they may contain solid
matter, refuse to precipitate it, owing to their viscosity (382?
13-16). (ii) Some viscous substances—e.g. bird-lime (iéés)—
refuse to solidify (are dayxra) owing to their viscosity. Ojil’s
refusal to solidify, whether by heat or cold, is however attributed
to the air, of which it is full, rather than to its viscosity (383° 20 ff.,

3851-5 : it appears from de Part. Anim. 648» 30-33, that oil

does ‘become cool and solidify’—i.e. freeze—though more
slowly than blood and than boiling water). (iii) Since 76

_ yMloxpov is ‘extensible’ or cohesive (cf. * 28° 4), it is sometimes

contrasted with 7d Wa6vpov, the ‘non-cohesive’ or ‘friable’ (cf.
e.g. Meteor. 385217, 387%11-15). Thus, e.g., water is pabupov
in contrast to oil. It falls apart into isolated drops: and there-
fore is more difficult to hold in one’s hand than oil. Oil can be
‘drawn out’ owing to its yAurypdrns (de Sensu 441% 23-26).
Aristotle says here (30% 4-6) that rd yAioxpov is a modification
of 76 typdov, but does not explain what the modification is, nor
how it is produced. According to Zabarella, it is a typév ‘ which
2264 F

210 - COMMENTARY

has been very efficaciously combined with a little ypdv’. Can
we perhaps infer from Aristotle’s instance (oil) that it is a typdv
which has become ‘full of air’—for that is the peculiarity of oil?
We are not told what fills the éypév with air—whether e.g. this
is an effect of the hot or the cold.

Since Aristotle says that 7d xpatpov is ‘that which is so
completely dry, that failure of moisture has actually caused it to
solidify’ (30%6-7, cf. * 22-23), we may hope to gain some light
on the subject from Meteor. 382>31 ff. and 385% 22-33. For
we are there told to distinguish, amongst the bodies ‘which
solidify and harden’, (a) those which are forms of Water and ©
(b) those which are forms of Earth. (a) Zhe forms of Water are
solidified by the cold, which crushes out the hot (é«@A‘Bovros 76
Oepyov)—the moist evaporating along with the vanishing hot.
They solidify, therefore, owing to the absence of the hot: and they
liquefy again by heat (cf. * 29> 26-30). Ice, lead, and bronze are
given as instances. (b) Zhe forms of Earth are solidified by the
hot, which dries up the moist in them. They solidify, therefore,
owing to the absence of the moist. ‘The instances given are xépapos
(terra-cotta ?), soda (virpov), salt, yj 4 é« wnAod. Most of these
liquefy again by the moist: xépayos is an exception, and its
refusal to liquefy is explained by Aristotle on other grounds.
From the present passage we should naturally infer that 76
xpadpov is a form of Earth, which has solidified owing to the
complete elimination of its moisture by the hot. If so, ice is
not strictly speaking xpatpov. For though it shares one charac-
teristic property with 7d xpadpov, viz. that it is Opavorov (cf.
Meteor. 386% 10 and de Part. Anim. 655* 31-32), it is a form
of Water, and its solidification is due primarily to the absence
of the hot, not to the absence of the moist. Aristotle, however,
says of the egg-shell that, when completely developed, it becomes
ok\npov kat Kpadpov, and he ascribes its solidification to the cold.
It ‘comes out’ soft, but is immediately cooled and thus solidified
—the little moisture in it quickly evaporating, and only the earthy
element of its consistency remaining (de Gen. Anim. 752° 30 ff.).

go* 8-12. ér. ... &npdv. The matter of every composite body
is an attemperament of dry and moist (cf. * 29> 30-32); and
according to the proportion of dry and moist in this attempera-
ment—which depends upon wyéis—the body is either padaxdy or
oxAnpov. Since wyéis is effected by the hot or the cold or by both
together, waAaxov and oxAnpov are modifications in the moist and

B. 2. 330° 4-24 211

the dry produced by the agency of the hot and the cold (cf. * 29»
26-30, Meteor, 382° 8-11, * 22 ff.).

The hard or rigid (oxAnpdv) does not yield to pressure by with-
drawing into itself, whereas the surface of a soft or plastic
(uadaxdv) body retires under pressure upon the body itself (cf.
de Caelo 299% 13-14). Water on the other hand—or any iypév—
yields to pressure by total displacement (cf. Meteor. 382% 11-14,
386% 24-25. Water dvrirepiiorara: or avtyseBicrarat).

30* 9. peiordpevov, 1. q. dvtipeOiordpevov: see preceding note.

30* II-12, 76 8€... Enpdv. This is not very clear: for (a) the
padaxdv as well as the oxAnpdv involves wHgéis, and (b) the xpaidpov
as well as the oxAnpov is remnyds (30% 6-7).

Perhaps Aristotle means, as Zabarella suggests, that a body
becomes ‘hard’, if the wéus has been carried ‘so far as to eliminate
the moist. The result is then reAéws Enpdy, and it is (i) xpadpor,
qua deprived of its moisture and therefore easily 6pavaror, and (ii)
oKAnpov, gua not yielding to pressure.

30* 12-24. Aéyetor... dypod. Aristotle here distinguishes three
subordinate senses of dypév and Enpdov, and shows that they all de-
rive from the moist and dry which were first mentioned, i. e. from
bypov and £ypdv in the sense defined above (29> 30-32).

The term typév is applied (i) to that which has foreign moisture
on its surface—the ‘moistened’ or ‘damp’ (depov), and (ii) to
that which has foreign moisture penetrating to its core—the
‘sodden’, ‘drenched’, or ‘sopping’ (BeBpeypévov: the term is
used e.g. of wool and of earth, AZeteor. 385 14, &c., and of a sponge,
ib. 386% 5).

Correspondingly, the term éypév is applied (i) to the contrary
of the depo, i.e. to that which (though it was, or might have been,

_ damp) is ‘dried’ (# 18-19); and (ii)—though Aristotle does not

expressly mention this use of the term—to the contrary of the
B<Bpeypévor, i.e. to that which (though it was, or might have been,
sodden) is ‘ dried through and through’.

Finally (ili) 76 typév may mean that which contains moisture of
its own; and may thus be contrasted with that form of the pov
which is called rernyds or ‘solidified’ (30% 20-24).

The antithesis typov-rernyos was used above, 27% 17-22.
Philoponos rightly explains that iypov in this sense applies to ‘ra .
TyKTd, e.g. wax, lead, and the like’. These ‘liquefiable’ substances
differ from éypa proper: for whereas the latter are nothing but
iypa (are bypa through and through), the former év 76 BaGe

P2

#45: COMMENTARY

KEKpUPLpEVNV EXEL THV OiKeElav byporyra. They also differ from ra
BeBpeypeva (e.g. mud, or the sopping sponge), because the é Syperns
in them is ‘heir own, and not imported from without: it is oike/a
not éAAorpia, Or cuppuys NOt éraxros (cf. AZeteor. 382» 11).

It is clear that these three subordinate senses of éypév and
_Enpdv derive from the primary iypov and énpov, because the latter
are employed in defining them. Thus, e. g., ¢he damp is that which
has on its surface a foreign typdrns, i.e. a typdév in the primary
sense. Zhe solidified is that which has been deprived of a typorns
(i. e. a Sypdv in the primary sense) originally belonging to it, and
is thus €ypév in the primary sense, viz. dvcdpicrov—not easily
adaptable in shape.

307 13-15. dvtixertor... AexOdvrwv. BeBpeypévoy and its un-
named contrary are not here referred to, and we have therefore
two (not three) subordinate senses of iypov—Empov : viz. (i) damp-
dried and (ii) liquefiable—solidified.

dravra 8 ratr (#14), i.e. duepov and its contrary Enpov, wemnyos
and its contrary typov. |

Tov mpdtwv AexGevtwv (# 15), ‘those which were first mentioned’ :
cf. mpwrn AexOeioa daropia (Polit. 12821), 7 mpdrn AexOeioa
drepia (Meteor. 381% 13).

Bonitz, however (Jd. 653% 50-51), interprets ‘in their primary
sense’, and suggests rpwérws as an emendation of rpdtwv: cf. 30% 19.

30° 21-23. bypév...tavtys. Aristotle here contrasts the sodden
with the Liguefiable: previously (® 16- Fai the sodden was distin-
guished from ¢he damp.

B. 3

30* 30—g1* 6, “Enel... mpod. The doctrine of this chapter
may be summarized thus :—It is mathematically possible to com-
bine any four terms in six different couples. But, of the four
elementary qualities, hot cannot be coupled with cold, nor dry with
moist, since they are contraries. Hence the possible couples of
these four qualities are vead/y only four (30% 30 — 1).

Conformably to this result, each of the ‘so-called elements’,
which appear to be simple bodies, is in fact characterized by
(a different) one of the four possible couples of qualities: and
_ there are four of these ‘elements’, corresponding in number to
the four elementary qualities. This correspondence (of the ‘simple
bodies’ to the qualities) is to some extent confirmed by reflection
upon the views of previous thinkers (30> 1-21),

Te

OP ste) ie 0 VO e te, ee >

B. 2. 330713 — 3. 330° a1 213

Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, however, are not vea//y simple
bodies. The veal ‘simple bodies’ are like them, but more
pure (30! 21-go).

The simple bodies fall into two pairs, according as they tend to
move ‘up’ to the periphery or ‘down’ to the centre of the Cosmos.
From this point of view, Fire and Air are contrasted with Earth
and Water. From another point of view, Fire and Earth as
extremes are contrasted with Air and Water as intermediates.
But though they thus fall into pairs, they are four: and, gua four,
each of them is primarily and distinctively characterized by
(a different) one of the four qualities (g30” go— g1* 6).

30* 30. otorxeta: cf. * 28> 26—35% 23, *29%5, * 2g 2-3,
*29>13. The word here and at ®33 means the elementary
qualities, which are genuine (not merely ‘so-called ’) orovxeta.

go? 1-7. AKodovOyke ... Adyov. Aristotle has proved that there
must be precisely four elementary qualities (hot, cold, dry, moist),
capable of forming precisely four couples, It is in consonance
with these results of theory (kara Aoyov, > 2, 7: evAdyws, > 6) that
common opinion, resting on the evidence of perception, recognizes
four ‘simple’ bodies, and attributes to them respectively, as their
characteristic qualities, precisely these four couples.

axoAovbety, i. q: drape, Karayopeio tat (cf. Bonitz, Znd. 260 rf, ),
but the term is used here with xara Aoyov to suggest that
the attribution of these couples to Earth, Air, Fire, and Water
is a logical consequence of the theory which Aristotle has
developed.

There is a double antithesis implied in ¢avopévors (30? 2), viz.
(a) that between appearance and reality, and (b) that between
what seems on the evidence of ¢he senses, and what is on the
evidence of veasoning. Earth, Air, Fire, and Water appear to
perception to be ‘simple’ bodies: but they are not really so, as
reflection will show (cf. 30% 21-30).

go> 4. otov...dyp. It is evident to perception that ‘air’ is
hot and moist, if ‘air’ is understood in Aristotle’s sense as ‘a sort
of drpis’: cf. * 22 2-3, * 31224. This is what djp must mean,
if it is distinguished from ‘fire’ (i.e. the ‘fiery’ simple body,
which is ofov tréxxavya).

30> 7-21. admavtes... dvtitiOnow : cf. * 28> 33—29%5. The chief
object of this brief review is to confirm Aristotle’s theory by show-
ing (a) that in all previous theories the number of the ‘simple
bodies’ depended upon the number of elementary qualities re-

214 COMMENTARY

cognized, and (b) that no previous theory recognized more than
four ‘ simple bodies’.

gobi. tas dpxds: ‘originative sources’, i.e. in effect ere
‘elementary qualities’ (cf. e.g. 2954, » 9), for the underlying
matter is separately reckoned (30? 12-13).

gobi2. 4: ‘or rather’, for rarefaction is due to heat and con-
densation to cold (cf. * 29> 34—30* 4).

3013. Syproupyodvra. Aristotle himself applies this term to the
hot and the cold as forces manipulating the dry—moist and thus
producing a consistent and definitely-shaped compound: cf. e.g.
Meteor. 384» 26, 388% 27, 389% 28, |

3013-19. ot... movodow. Aristotle here contrasts with the
‘monists’, and compares with one another, (i) those who postu-
lated from the outset (» 13 ed6ds: for even the monists in effect
assume two dpxai, cf. >11) two ‘simple bodies’ and (ii) those
who postulated three ‘simple bodies’ as orovxeta.

(i) The ‘dualists’ select, as their crovyeta, two simple bodies,
characterized respectively by the opposite qualities of a contrariety.
As thus characterized, these two simple bodies are ‘extremes’ :
and the other supposed ‘simple’ bodies—the ‘intermediates’ or
‘means’ (> 14 7a peragd, > 19 7d wéoov)—are explained as ‘ blends’
(15 ptypara rovtor TovTwv), i.e. as characterized by qualities
intermediate between the contraries which were assumed to
characterize the ‘extremes’.

‘Parmenides’—i.e. the Pythagorean theory criticized in the
second part of his poem (cf. * 18> 6—7, * 35> 16-17, * 36% 1-12)
—is quoted as a typical instance. In this ‘ dualistic’ theory, Fire
and Earth, characterized respectively by the hot and the cold,
were selected as ororxeta: and Air and Water were regarded as
‘blends’ of these two ‘extremes’.

(ii) The second group of thinkers postulated three ‘ simple
bodies’ as orotxeia. They regarded two of these as ‘extremes’,
and the third—the intermediate or middle one—as a ‘blend’ of
these. Hence, as Aristotle says, they only differ from the ‘ dualists’
in that the latter ‘split che zutermediate into two’, whilst they
do not.

30> 15-17. doattws ... movet. ‘The same course is followed
by those who advocate ¢ivee. (We may compare what Plato does
in “the Divisions”: for he makes the middle of his three kinds
of substance a blend.) ’

Aristotle mentioned a theory which postulated a triad of ‘ simple

B, 3. 330%11-17 215
bodies’ (Fire, Earth, Air) in B. 1, without naming the author.
Philoponos, as we saw (* 29% 1-2), ascribes this theory to Ion of
Chios. 3

(i) If we accept the usual interpretation of the present passage,
Plato is accused of postulating three ‘simple bodies’ as orouxeia,
and of regarding two of them as extremes, the third being an
intermediate produced by blending the extremes. He is said to
have done this év rats dvaipéoeoww—an addition which increases
the obscurity of the passage.

According to Philoponos (p. 226, ll. 17 ff.), Alexander said
that ‘the reputed diapéoes of Plato is a spurious work, but
Aristotle is probably referring to the Sophist, diaipécets kaddv ra év
éexeivw’. Onthis, Philoponos remarks (a) that in his day there was
no work called dcapécers attributed to Plato, and (b) that there is
nothing in the Sopfzst connected with the theory of a triad of
‘simple bodies’. Accordingly he prefers another suggestion of
Alexander’s, viz. that the reference is to certain dypapa doypara
of Plato, which Aristotle himself had written down (dzeypadero)
under the title of dvarpécers (cf. also the exhaustive note in Zeller ‘,
li, 2, D. 437s): .

But if we identify the diapéoes with a collection of Plato’s
‘unwritten opinions’ (whether made by Aristotle or by some
anonymous writer), we are still confronted with an insuperable
difficulty. For how could Aristotle have credited Plato with
a theory so utterly irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Zzmaeus,
without a single word of explanation? And, on the other hand,
if Plato had maintained a ‘triad’ of this kind (or if Aristotle
thought that he had done so), is it not incredible that Aristotle
should have omitted to emphasize its inconsistency with the
Timaeus? The doctrine of the ‘elements’ in the Zimaeus was
criticized above (cf. * 29% 13-24): yet thereis not a word there, or
anywhere else in Aristotle, to suggest that Plato ever put forward
a different, and an incompatible, theory.

For the theory is beyond question incompatible with the
Timaeus. It is true, no doubt, that Plato (1. c., 31 b—32 c) treats
Fire and Earth as ‘extremes’ requiring a ‘mean’ to unite them.
But (as he immediately proceeds to say) ‘extremes’ which are
solids require ‘wo ‘means’ to unite them, and accordingly there
must be two intermediate bodies (Air and Water) between Fire
and Earth.

Thus the doctrine of the. Z7aeus resembles the view attributed

216 COMMENTARY

by Aristotle to the ‘ dualists’: cf. * 30 r3~-19. Again, it is true
that Plato ( Zimaeus 55 d ff.) groups Fire, Air, and Water together,
as all three ultimately derived from the right-angled scalene, and
contrasts them with Earth, which is derived from the isosceles
(cf. * 25> 19-25). And he places Air midway between Fire and
Water in respect to mobility, size of corpuscles and sharpness
of their edge. But there is nothing in the Zimaeus to suggest
that ‘the so-called elements’ are really cro.xeia, or that they are
three and not four, or that Air is a piyya, e.g. of Fire and Earth
(cf. 29% 2).

(ii) I am therefore convinced that the usual interpretation
of the present passage is wrong. Aristotle is not here attributing
to Plato the doctrine of a ¢viad of ‘ simple bodies’ at all. All that
he is saying is that the advocates of such a triad (e. g. Ion) made
one of the three a blend of the other two, ‘just as Plato év rais
duatpeceow makes the middle a blend’.

What, then, are the dcaipéoers in question, and to what Platonic
triad is Aristotle referring ?

Philoponos, supposing the dcarpécers to be a collection of Plato’s
dypada Sdypara, suggests that Aristotle is referring to ¢he Great
and ¢he Smal/ and to a third dpyy, playing the part of vAy, ‘ which
Plato said was a piypa of the Great and the Small’. But though
Aristotle constantly refers to Plato’s doctrine of ‘ the Great and
the Small’ (i.e. 76 drepov of the Philebus) and ‘the One’ (i.e. 76
wépas), he always recognizes that ‘the Great and the Small’ play
the part of vAy, and ‘the One’ corresponds to ‘form’ (cf. e.g. Phys.
187% 17-18, 189» 11 ff., Aletaph. 987” 20ff.). Even Philoponos
is obliged to admit that the third épy7 (which he identifies
with vA, i.e. with the trodoxy) was not, according to Plato,
a piypa of the Great and the Small, but ¢hat in which these
were mixed.

Since we need not suppose that Aristotle is here imputing to
Plato a doctrine so inconsistent with the dialogues as that of
a triad of ‘simple bodies’, we are no longer forced to interpret év
tais duapéoecw as a reference to an unknown work. Nor is there
any reason whatever to identify the dvaypéoers here mentioned with
at yeypappevar Svarpécers referred to in the de Part. Anim. (642 12).
In spite of Zeller’s denial (1. c.), I agree with Dr. Ogle that these
‘published dichotomies’ are probably the divisions in the Sophis¢
and Politicus: but Aristotle does not attribute them to Plato by
name, and in any case they need not have anything to do

~~

B. 3. 330° 15-30 | 217

with the dvaypéoecs in the present passage. The latter, I venture
to suggest, are simply Aristotle’s name for a famous passage in
the Zimaeus (35 a ff.), where Plato describes the formation of the
Soul. Plato there works with a triad, the third member of which
is produced by blending the other two. God takes (a) the Indi-
visible and always Self-Identical Substance (Identity) and, blend-
ing it with (b) the Substance 7 wepi 7a cadpata yryvopévn pepiori)
(Otherness), produces (c) a third kind of Substance. Next, God
mixes together all three, viz. Identity, Otherness, and their
Blend ; and having done so, divides the whole resultant Sub-
stance into parts. The division—or rather the divisions, for Plato
distinguishes in the whole process two successive operations—is

introduced with the words jpyero 8& Supe dd (35 b), and is

elaborately described (cf. Martin, i, pp. 383 ff.). It seems likely
enough that this section of the Zzmaeus should have been quoted
by Aristotle as ai drapéceis.

30> 20-21. cuvdyer... dvtitiOnow. Cf. AZetaph. 985° 31 —? 3:
Burnet, p. 231.

gob 22. wird. None of ‘the so-called elements’ is a pure
example of zpérn vAn informed by a couple of elementary quali-
ties : they are all more or less ‘blends’. The terms piypa, puxrdv
in this chapter are not used in the strict sense of ‘chemical

compounds’ (cf. A. 10), but simply in contrast to 76 dwAodv, 76

eiAukpuvés.

30> 23-25. ra... &AdMwv. To each of ‘the so-called elements’
there corresponds a veadly-simple body, which resembles it in
character, but is not identical with it. Thus, e.g., zpwry vAn
informed by hot-dry is not the same as fire: but it is ‘ fiery’ in
character, and is the pure simple body, of which our fire is an
impure or modified form (cf. * 22> 2-3).

30> 25-30. 15... mupds. Fire is to the veadlly-simple body,
which resembles it, as ice is to water: i.e. it is an exaggeration
of it, in which its characteristic quality (¢#e of) is intensified (cf.
Meteor. 340» 23: below, * 31 24-26), just as ice is an intensifica-
tion of the cold which distinctively characterizes water.

That is why, as Aristotle adds, neither ice nor fire play any part,
as constituent materials, in the coming-to-be of living things :—
though the hot-dry and the cold—moist simple bodies (the first
of which Aristotle cad/s ‘ fire’) do enter into the constitution of
every dpovopepes (cf. 34> 31-32).

30> 30-33. ovtwv...pécov. This passage presupposes the

218 COMMENTARY

doctrine developed in the de Caelo: cf. Introd. § 10, * 22 2-3,
* 23° 6-8. .

The two rézrox (30% 31-32) are the dvw (the periphery) and the
xatw (the centre) of the sublunary sphere. Corresponding to
these two regions there are two extreme simple bodies, viz. (i) the
absolutely heavy (Earth), and (ii) the absolutely light (Fire).
These two ‘extremes’ imply an ‘intermediate’ body, which
Aristotle divides into two, Air and Water. Both of these are
relatively both light and heavy; for Air rAqv rupds raow éruroAdet,
and Water zAjv yas tacw bpiorara (cf. de Caelo 312% 25-27).

Accordingly Fire and Air are here reckoned as forms of the
body which moves towards the ‘limit’, i. e. towards the periphery
(> 32 rod pds Tov pov Pepopevor, SC. owparos) ; and are contrasted
with Water and Earth as forms of the body which tends towards
the centre.

In » 31 the best reading is éxarepa. ‘The simple bodies, since
they are four, fall into two pairs which belong to the two regions,
each to each.’ Bonitz seems to be right in taking roty dvoty as
dependent on éxarépov. The reading zpérwv (instead of zé7wyv) in

EJ®! (cod. Z) is implied also by I’s ‘duorum utique primorum ~

esse unumquodque’. Perhaps it was originally a gloss to explain
what rozou Aristotle meant.

30> 33— 3191. xaldxpa... dp. Fire and Earth (i.e. the veal/ly-
simple bodies which resemble these) exhibit their respective
tendencies to movement, up and down, in the extreme or purest
form. Hence they are grouped together as ‘extremes’, and con-
trasted with Air and Water.

3I* 1-3. kal éxdtrepa ... cuvéornxev. Aristotle reverts to the
previous grouping (30% 31~33) of Fire and Air on the one hand,
and Water and Earth on the other.

Philoponos rightly regards 31% 2-3 (ratra yap . . . cvvéoTnkev) as
an explanation of how the simple bodies, although they are ovciar,
can be said to be ‘contrary’ to one another (cf. e. g. Categ. 3% 24-
25). The contrariety depends on the elementary qualities which
constitute them. Cf. also 35% 6.

For ra@yparov (* 3), cf. e.g. 29515 wabos.

31° 3-6. of piv... gmpod. In the Meteor. (cf. e.g. 382% 3-4)
Water is treated as, of all the simple bodies, most typically exem-
plifying +6 typov: and Aristotle builds his classification of the
épovopepy upon this assumption. He classifies them in three
groups, according as their matter—which must be a temperament

3

B. 3. 330 30 — 4. 332% 2 219

of sypdév and énpédv (cf. * 29% 30-32)—is predominantly Water,
predominantly Earth, or egually Earth and Water.

Yet here (312 4-5 vdwp ... Oepyod) he appears to view Air as
more éypov than Water. Now, so far as the definition of 76 bypév
is concerned, Air might well be regarded as more typév—i. e. as
less determinate in its outlines—than Water: and so Philoponos
(p. 230, ll. 29-30) explains this passage, But this interpretation
is inconsistent with the doctrine of the Mezeorologica: cf. also
below, * 34° 34—35° 3.

It may perhaps be suggested that Aristotle does not say here—
his words do not even zecessarily imply—that Air is more typov
than Water. He is not comparing the simple bodies with one
another. Tis immediate purpose is to insist that, within the
couple of qualities characterizing each ‘element’, one quality is
more distinctive of the ‘element’ than the other. Thus, though
Water is wuxpdv—typdv, it is par excellence characterized by
cold rather than by moist: and though Air is iypov—Oeppov,
it is par excellence characterized by moist rather than by hot.

B. 4

3I* 7—32° 2. “Ewet ... etpyta. All the simple bodies are by
nature such as to be transformed into one another (gI* 7-21).
This transformation occurs in various ways. The quickest and
easiest method is for an ‘ element’ to pass into the ‘ element’ next
to it in the natural series—i. e. Earth into Water, Water into Air,
Air into Fire, and Fire into Earth. The transformation is then
effected by the conversion of a single elementary quality into its
contrary (31? 21-4). The slowest and most difficult transformation
is that by which a single ‘ element’ passes into another ‘element’

characterized by qualities the contrary of its own—i.e. Earth

into Air, Air into Earth, Fire into Water, Water into Fire. For
two elementary qualities have here to be converted into their
contraries (31> 4-11). There is a third method, by which two
‘elements’ taken together, provided they are not ‘ consecutive’, pass

(by the elimination of a single quality in each) into either one of

the remaining ‘elements’. Thus Fire + Water are transformed into
Earth or into Air, according as ezther the hot and the moist ov the
dry and the cold are eliminated : and Air + Earth are transformed
into Fire or Water by the elimination ez¢her of the moist and the
cold or of the hot and the dry (gr 12-26). But this method of
transformation does not apply if the two ‘elements’, which are

220 COMMENTARY s

taken together, are next to one another in the natural series.
No third ‘element’ can be thus generated from Fire + Air, Air +
Water, Water+ Earth, or Earth+Fire. For the elimination of
one elementary quality in each member of these pairs will leave
either two identical ov two contrary qualities—i.e. qualities
incapable of constituting a simple body (31 26-36).

31° 7. Sidpictar mpdtepov. The reference is probably neither
to 14> 15-26, nor to 2935, but rather to de Caelo 304» 23 fff.
Aristotle had there maintained (a) against Empedokles, who said
that the ‘elements’ were didi (cf. * 1524-8), and (b) against
Plato, who denied that Earth comes-to-be out of the other three
(cf. Zimaeus 54 b-d), that all four simple bodies come-to-be out
of, and pass-away into, one another. He had also criticized the
accounts given by Demokritos and the Platonists of the manner
in which the ‘elements’ are transformed.

3I* 8-10. Gua . . . éotww. Apparently the argument is :—
‘Perception attests the yéveous of the ‘‘elements”. For éAAotwors
is an undeniable fact of perception (cf. 14> 13-15): and éAAotwors
is the change of a ¢angible (cf. * 29> 7-13) body in respect to its
aicOnra réOn (cf. e.g. * 19> 8-10). Hence the observed fact of
ddXolwors implies change in the way of the dard.’

If this be the argument (cf. also 14 15-26), it is clearly very
weak. The ra@y of the dézra include not only the derivative as
well as the dasal contrarieties of touch, but also the qualities
of colour, sound, flavour, and scent. And even if Philoponos
(p. 232, ll. 6-12) is right in suggesting that all these za6y are
effects of the various blendings of ¢he ot and the cold, and the dry
and the moist, still the fact of dAAotwo1s does not prove that the
‘elements’ come-to-be. For dAdAoiwois does not imply, in every
instance, a change from cold to hot, or dry to moist, or vice versa.
At most dddoiwors implies some modification in these basal
contrarieties of touch, and shows therefore that the yéveous of the
‘elements’ is possible.

31°24. otpBodka. According to Liddell and Scott, cvpBora
‘were strictly the two pieces of a bone or coin, which two éévo.,
or any two contracting parties, broke between them and preserved,
tallies, Latin tesserae hospitales’.. In Aristophanes’ speech (Plato,
Symp. 191 d) each of us is said to be dvOpdov cipBodor, are
TeTUNMEVOS WoTEep al WHTTa, e€ évds d¥o. We are, each of us,
a half severed from the original whole human being—a_ half
demanding its complementary half to constitute a complete

~~ ey

ee ee en

Che, USP es tel eh

Sa 2 ee a

B. 4. 331% 7—-331> 24 221

avOpwros, much as a flat-fish, to judge by its appearance, requires
to be joined to another flat-fish, blank underside to blank under-
side, to form a complete individual.

Aristotle uses the term here and elsewhere to mean a part of
one whole, which is capable of fitting in with a complementary
part so as to constitute another whole. Thus, e. g., the hot in Air
can fit in with ¢#e dry, and thus constitute Fire: and ¢he fot in
Fire can fit in with ¢4e moist, and thus constitute Air. Hence ¢he
hot in Air and Fire is an interchangeable ‘complementary factor’.
(Cf. Bonitz, Jud. 715% 1-8. He renders ovpPodovr by ‘ pars’, which
is hardly adequate.) Perhaps the most instructive passage is in the
Meteorologica, where Aristotle is explaining the formation of Air.
Air in the strict sense—not in the more popular sense in which
Aristotle sometimes (e.g. de Caelo 289% 29, Meteor. 340 21-32 :
cf. Gilbert, p. 181,, p. 476,, &c.) uses ‘air’ to include the ‘fiery’
body—is a ot—moist body, filling the lower atmosphere, the region
where drpis predominantly collects and clouds form. It is ‘a sort
of arpis’ (* 30> 4) ; yet, as Aristotle maintains (JZe/eor. 360° 21-27),
kamvos——i.e. the mvevparodys avabvpiacis—as well as arpis (the
drpudwdys avavpiacts) contributes to its formation. The arpidadys
ava@upiacis, which, since it is drawn from the water, is really ‘in
its own nature’ co/d and moist (cf. * 22> 2-3, * 31> 24-26), supplies
the moist, and the xamvés contributes the hot, date xabdrep éx
ovpBodrwv cvviotaito ay 6 ajp typos Kal Gepyds.

g1b2-4. dote . . . pegs. Aristotle has shown that, by the
conversion of a single elementary quality in each case, Fire is
transformed into Air, Air into Water, Water into Earth, and Earth
into Fire (312 26-2). This is a cycle of transformations. At the
same time, the ‘elements’ have been taken ‘consecutively’,
i.e. in their natural order: for—working ‘ downwards’ from the
‘uppermost’ stratum—Air comes next to Fire, Water to Air, and
Earth to Water (cf. Introd. § ro, * 222-3). Hence Aristotle says
that the ‘elements’ taken in their natural consecution contain
ovpora, and therefore cyclical transformation of the simple bodies
is the easiest. For épe€is, cf. *16> 4.

gibs5. é§ Wdaros .. . wip. apa kal wip by chiasmus for rip
Kal a€pa. |
gi» 11-24. airy . . . mupds. The transformation of Fire into

Water or of Air into Earth, and vice versa, involves the ‘ passing-
away’ of both elementary qualities in each case, i.e. sheir
conversion into their contraries (31% 4-11). Hence it takes a

222 COMMENTARY

longer time than the transformation of the ‘elements’ in their
natural series, which involves only the conversion of one
elementary quality into its contrary (31823~— 4). There is, how-
ever, a third method of transformation—though not of reciprocal
transformation (3112-13 ov« eis GAAnAa Se H petdBaors)—
whereby ‘wo ‘elements’ together generate a third. This involves
the ‘passing-away’ (dut not the conversion) of one elementary
quality in each of the generating ‘elements’, the new ‘ element’
being formed out of the remaining two elementary qualities.

31> 23. qv: cf. * 14 25-26, * 28b 2,

31> 24-26. dpodoyoupévy ... ys. Air (cf. * 31424) is formed
out of drpis and xamvés: but this is not inconsistent with Aristotle’s
statement here that xazvos is derived from Air and Earth. For
xamvos is a hot—dry exhalation or smoke, and it may draw its hof
from Air and its dvy from Earth. Cf. e.g. Meteor. 371° 33-1
OTL pev yap O TE Kavos TVEdWa Kal KaeTaL 6 KamVds, Pavepdv, Kat
eipyrar év érépois mporepov. (Since zvedua is defined —JAZefeor.
387% 29—as flows cvvexns ext pyKos aépos, Bonitz is probably right
in interpreting cipyrar ev érépous mpdrepov as a reference to the
present passage.) ‘The same doctrine is implied in Meteor. 341»
21-22 (€or yap 7 PASE tvevparos Enpod Léors), 366% 2-3, 387> 31 fff. :
cf. also de Sensu 443%27-28; and above, 3029. At the same
time, it must be remarked in general that it is extremely difficult
to reconcile Aristotle’s various statements about the durdAq dvabv-
piacis (cf. *22>2-3) and about drpis and xazvds which are
typical of its two forms. We must always remember that the two
forms of dvafvpiaois never exist entirely apart from one another.
The distinction between them is one of degree, and depends upon
the relative predominance of ¢he dry over the motst, or vice versa
(cf. Meteor. 359° 28-34). The dva6vyiacis, in so far as it is
derived from water, is relatively mozs¢, and more like mist or
aqueous vapour (drpdadns, drpidwdeorépa). It is ‘hot’, indeed,
since it has been drawn from the water by the sun’s heat: yet,
as derived from water, it is (cf. *31%24) ‘in its own nature’
cold. On the other hand, the dva@vpiacis, in so far as it is
drawn up from earth, is relatively dvy and more like wind or
smoke (zvevparwoeorépa, xarvedys: cf. e.g. Meteor. 341» 6-18).

31> 27-28. pOapévros . . . orotxeiwv. Probably ororxefwy is to
be taken with @arépov,. not with éxarépw. It will then mean
‘elementary qualities’: cf. * 30% 30.

31> 28. tv cupdroy, 1. gq. Tov drAGv Copdrov.

\

B. 4. 331 23 — 5. 332210 223

B. 5

32° 3—337 15. 08... €orat. On the connexion of B. 5-7 with
B, 1-4, see * 28> 26—35* 23. B. 5 falls into two parts. (i) The
doctrine already established—viz. that there must be four ‘simple
bodies’, informations of a single incorporeal matter, constituted
each by a couple of qualities drawn from two contrarieties, and all
able to-be transformed into one another—is shown to follow from
a somewhat different starting-point (32% 4 — » 5).

(ii) It is proved that none of the ‘simple bodies’ can be an
unchangeable origin (apyy) of the others. None of them is
a genuine e/ement, none of them is—in that sense—the vAy of the
‘natural bodies’. All of them are on the same level of being—
derivative and changeable.

Incidentally it is proved that the transformations of the
‘elements’ cannot proceed ad infinitum in a straight line: and
thus Aristotle’s own doctrine, that their transformations are
cyclical, is confirmed (32> 5—33? 15).

32° 4-5. el... Toradta. Cf. 282 32—29%5. 71a hvoixa copara
(@4) are, I think, equivalent here to ai dice cuvectdca oiciat,
on which see * 28> 32-33.

326°-7. & ... yqv. Aristotle is arguing against the theory
that some one or other of the so-called ‘elements’ is the izroxeévy
vAy, of which the remaining ‘elements’ (and therefore w/timately
all dvoid owpara) are derivative forms. zdvra (#6, *7), iq.
TavTa TH OTAG owHpara.

32° 7-8. eiwep ... tavavtia. Here, as elsewhere (cf. e.g. 31%
14, 32 21-22), Aristotle assumes this principle, which he had
established in the Physics (cf. * 19° 6—20* 7), as a fundamental
law of nature.

32° 8-9. ci pev... yéveors. It will be ddAolwors, because ex
hypothest the persisting troxeipevov (viz. Air) is a perceptible body:
cf. e.g. * 19> 10-12. The alternative—viz. «i wi iropever—is not
stated, because, unless Air is supposed to ‘persist’, it clearly
could not be the vAy of the others as the theory maintains.

32° 9-10. dua... étiodv. ‘Moreover, nobody supposes a
single ‘‘ element” to persist as the basis of all in such a way that,
besides being Air, it is simultaneously Water or any other
“element ”.’

Air (@ 8-9) is supposed to ‘persist’, and the other ‘elements’
to be derived from it. “This means that Air a/fers e.g. into

224° . COMMENTARY

Water, not that Water comes-to-be. ‘ Alteration’, however, implies
that the Air, which has altered e.g. into Water, exhibits some
difference from simple Air: and this leads to difficulties which
Aristotle will develop immediately (2 10-17). In the meantime,
in the parenthesis aya... drodv, he confirms his statement that
the theory is bound to recognize an alteration of its supposed |
fundamental ‘ element ’.

32° 10-12. gota. ... Oeppdtnta. Since some change is neces-
sarily implied, and since all change is from contrary to contrary,
_the persisting ‘element’ must possess a quality contrary to a quality
possessed by the ‘element’ into which it ‘alters’, Thus e.g., if
Air is to alter into Fire, we must assume a contrariety Lot—cold,
and assign one contrary (e.g. 4o/) to Fire. The Air, which has
altered into Fire, will then be distinguished from the Air, which
is the droxepéevyn tAn, by being Zot Air.

The antecedent of 7s (@11) is evavriwors, Kat Svadopé being
parenthetical and explanatory. The contrariety differentiates the
brokeiwevov into its specific forms, each contrary characterizing
a different form. It is tempting to transpose ofov and 76 zip, but
in any case we must construe 7 as the subject of éée.

32° 12-17. ddA... €otar. Fire cannot be ‘hot Air’ for three
reasons. For (i) the process thus implied is ‘alteration’ of Air,
not transformation: (ii) Air is not observed to become Fire by
being heated (®13 od ¢gaiverar): (iii) if Fire is ‘hot Air’, Air
itself must be cold (for if we suppose Fire to revert again into its
broxepevyn vAy, Air, this will involve the conversion of ¢he kof into
its contrary); in other words, Fire will be both hot and cold, hot
gua Fire and cold gua Air. 3

7o airé (* 17), SC. 76 wip: but Aristotle’s argument also proves
that Air must be simultaneously both cold and hot.

32° 17-18. dAdo... kowh. ‘Both Fire and Air, therefore, will
be something else which is the same; i.e. there will be some
matter, other than either, common to both.’ This ‘other matter’
is of course Aristotle’s rpérn vAn.

32° 20-25. od phy... mwept€xov. Anaximander and his followers
(* 25, twes) thought that all things were made out of a single
‘deathless’ and ‘indestructible’ stuff, which they called ‘the
Boundless’ and ‘the Environing’: cf. e.g. de Caelo 303 12-13,
Phys. 203 10-15. As the origin of all things, and as itself not
characterized by any of the contraries, it is clearly ‘other’ than
the ‘elements’. And since, as Aristotle rightly interprets the

SS ——

Be, 932" 10-25 225

theory, ‘the Boundless’ is a Jody, it is natural that he should
describe it as an ‘intermediate’ between two of the ‘elements’.
In several passages (cf. e.g. 28 35) Aristotle speaks of it as inter-
mediate between Fire and Air: in others (e.g. Phys. 203° 18,
205% 27) as intermediate between Water and Air: and in one (Phys.
189> 3) as intermediate between Water and Fire. Burnet (p. 55,)
rightly remarks that this variation shows we are dealing with
an inference drawn by Aristotle, not with Anaximander’s own
statement.

32% 20-22. otov . . . NewTéTepov, i.e. the dzeupov, if intermediate
between Azv and Water, is coarser than Air and finer than Water ;
if between Hive and Air, coarser than Fire and finer than Air (cf.
Phys. 187% 14-15).

32° 22-25. €orar... wepi€xov. The dzeipov is supposed to be
a body existing apart from (i.e. unqualified by) the contraries

which characterize the ‘elements’. Hence the moment any of

these contraries is added to it, it becomes one or other of the
‘elements’. Now Aristotle maintains that it must always be
qualified by one or the other of the contraries constituting each
contrariety in question. For in the contrarieties which charac-
terize the ‘ elements’ (hot-cold, dry—moist) one contrary is related
to the other as privative to positive, as orépnois to eis or to
katyyopia tis Kat eldos (cf. * 18> 14-18). And though a middle
is possible between two contrary judgements (for x may be neither
hot nor cold, but insusceptible of temperature), umder certain
conditions the contrary is invested with the character of the
contradictory, and the Law of Excluded Middle applies. Thus,
if x is a subject which caz accept the predicate ‘odd’, ise. if

x is a number, it must be either odd or even: for a numéer,
which is not-odd, is eo zpso ‘even’. Within the sphere of number

the negation of ‘odd’ is eo igso the affirmation of ‘even’ (cf.
Post. Anal, 73° 18-24).

So the dzreipov, which ex hypothest can accept ‘hot’, must be
either hot or cold. For it must be either hot or not-hot: and
a subject which is by nature recipient of heat, in so far as it is
not-hot, is eo 7pso cold. For ‘cold’ is simply the orépyous of heat

- ina subject by nature dexrixdv of heat. The principle of Aristotle’s

argument applies to ‘coarse-fine’, the contrariety here supposed
to differentiate ‘the Boundless’ into Air and Water or into Air
and Fire (cf. 32% 21-23). For coarse and fine are equivalent to
dense and rare (cf. * 29> 34—30% 4), a contrariety which Anaxi-

2254 Q

226 | COMMENTARY

mander regarded as primary (cf. de Caelo 303 10-19): and rare
is, relatively to dense, a orépynos (cf. de Caelo 2998-9 gor 8
mukvov pavod Siabépov 7G ev tow dyKw TAciov évurdpxewv). If, there-
fore, ‘the Boundless’ cax be dense (coarse), it must be either
dense or rare (fine): for the dexrixdv of the dense, in so far as it
is not-dense, is ¢o ¢pso rare.

32% 25-27. Spotws...mdvta. ‘The Boundless’ cannot exist
apart from all contraries: and, possessing a contrary, it will be
one or other of the ‘elements’. Hence it is either nothing at all
or any one of the ‘elements’ indifferently, according to the
particular contrary which is at any time qualifying it. We have
thus disposed of the theory that something perceptible—i. e. some
body—exists, which is other than, and prior to, the four ‘ elements’.
Hence the four ‘elements’ are all the simple bodies there are—
always excepting the Aether, which is not here in question, since
we are considering only the matter of the yevvyra kai POapra.

32° 29-30. 7)... éypawey: cf. * 25> 19-25 and Zimaeus 54 b-—d.
Fire, Air, and Water all come-to-be out of one another, since they
are all derived from the right-angled scalene. But Earth is
derived from the isosceles and therefore does not come-to-be out
of the other three nor pass into them.

32° 31. SéSerxtar mpdrepov: cf. 31% 12-20.

32° 31-33. Kal... Bpaddtepov: cf. 314 20—> 36.

In *31 I have followed E (cf. also I ‘et quoniam’) in reading
kat Ort 6, and have therefore ventured to bracket cipyra: mpdrepov
in ® 32 as clumsy and unnecessary. In ® 32 om means ‘ because’.

32° 34-1. et... dxdptoros. One contrariety produces two
‘elements’ only: for matter (zpwry vAy) is the ‘mean’ between
the contraries, and matter has no separate subsistence. (Or
perhaps : ‘ for the ‘‘intermediate” is nothing but matter, and that
is imperceptible’ &c.)

325. mpdrepov: above, B. 2 and 3. Cf. also Phys. 189> 16 fff.

32> 5-7. ott... 8Hdov. Aristotle is going to show that none of
the ‘elements’ is an unchangeable originative source (épx7) of the
others : 1. e. that all four are on the same derivative level of being.

Assuming the natural series of the ‘elements’ (cf. * 31> 2-4),
there are two ‘at the end’ (éi 76 dxpw, or él rots dxpois), i. €. two
‘end-elements’, viz. Fire at the top and Earth at the bottom:
and two in the middle, viz, Air and Water. Hence we have
to prove that there can be no épy7 either ‘at the ends’ or ‘in the
middle’.

B. 5. 332%25—b14 227

32> 7-9. émwi nev... mdvra. If there is an dpyy at one of the
ends of the series, all the ‘elements’ (®8 and 9 zévra) will be
Fire or Earth. This is tantamount to saying that they all arise
by alteration of Fire or Earth—a theory which has already been
refuted (cf. 3286-20).

It is not clear why Aristotle confines this.argument to the
‘end-elements’. It would apply equally—if it applies at all—
whatever ‘element’ is selected as the dpyy of the rest.

The argument remains equally obscure if we interpret zavra

' (> 8 and 9) as ‘all things’, with Philoponos.

32> 10-12. drt... GAAnAa. We are to prove that no ‘ middle-
element’ can bean dpyy either. (dru 8 ot8 pécov, sc. dpyy Tis Zorar
airév.) It is not true, as some thinkers suppose, that Air is
transformed ‘upwards’ into Fire and ‘downwards’ into Water,
and Water ‘upwards’ into Air and ‘downwards’ into Earth,
whilst Earth and Fire are not further transformed into one
another. In other words, we cannot maintain that the process
of transformation starts from the ‘ middle-elements’ and, pro-
ceeding upwards and downwards in a straight line, is terminated
by the top and bottom ‘ elements’ respectively.

We do not know to what thinkers Aristotle is referring. They
denied the transformation of Fire into Earth and wice versa: i.e.
they denied the cycéca/ transformation of the ‘elements’. They
must also have denied the transformation of Fire into Air, and
of Earth into Water: otherwise (a) they could not have regarded
the ‘ middle-elements ’ as dpyai, and (b) they would have admitted
an indirect transformation of Fire and Earth into one another.

I have marked a lacuna after aAAyAa in? 12. The sense requires
dyjAov or éx tOvde SjAov which can hardly be borrowed in thought
from P 7.

g2> 12-14. Set . . . évovtat. Aristotle’s own theory is that the
transformation of the ‘elements’ is cyclical. He has therefore
to prove (a) that none of the ‘elements’ can be the apyx7 of the
rest, (b) that transformation cannot s/op at any of them, and
(c) that transformation cannot start from any one and proceed
ad infinitum in a straight line upwards or downwards.

He sets out to prove the last thesis (c) first: cf. 32 30-32.
But the actual proof is postponed to a refutation of the theory
that the ‘middle-elements’ are dpxaé and that transformation,
starting from them, stops at the extremes. Aristotle argues
(32 14-30) that the transformations which this theory accepts

Q2

228 COMMENTARY

(e.g. from Air to Fire and Water) imply the possibility of the
reverse transformations also, e. g. of Fire into Water (cf. » 24~25),
and thus ultimately of all the ‘ elements’ into one another.

32> 14-15. yj... 1. We need not attempt to reconstruct
Aristotle’s diagram, traces of which seem to be preserved in J.
The argument is clear without the letters.

g2>15-16. et ... AM. The words xai ¥ (? 16) are not strictly
relevant ; for the consequence (viz. that there must be a contrariety
belonging to d%jp and zip) follows from the transformation of Air
into Fire alone. Air’s transformation into Water (Y) is dealt with
below (© 17-19).

32) 20-24. odxodv . . . &npdtns. Air, we have supposed, gua
white changes into Fire gua black: and Air gua dry changes
into Water gua moist. Now, in this second transformation, what
happens to Air’s whiteness? It must either persist or change;
and if it changes, it must be converted into its contrary, black.
Hence Water, besides being moist, must also be either white or
black. It does not matter which alternative we adopt: for
Aristotle’s conclusions would follow equally, mutatis mutandis,
from either. For the sake of argument, he supposes (> 23) that
Air’s whiteness persists when it is transformed into Water.
Water, therefore, will be moist and white. On the same principle
(b 23-24) we must suppose that Fire, besides being black,
is also dry, Air’s dryness persisting when it is transformed
into Fire.

32> 24-27. éotar...deuxdv. We saw first that Fire was black
(> 16-17) and Water moist (® 17-19). ext we saw that Water
was also white (b 20-23) and Fire also dry (23-24). Hence
Fire is black—-dry, and Water is moist—-white. Therefore, since
Fire and Water possess contrary qualities, Fire can be transformed
into Water.

32" 28-30. Kal éwi ye... mw. In Aristotle’s diagram, A (Air)
has been taken as white—dry, II (Fire) as black-dry, and Y (Water)
as white—moist. Hence it is clear ‘that, in the instances we have
taken, I’ (Earth) also will contain the remaining two “ complemen-
tary factors ”, viz. the black and the moist: for these have not yet
been coupled ’.

32> 30-32. 6m... tavde: cf. * 32> 12-14.

32> g2—33"1. ei ...7d6%. We must bear in mind, as Philo-
ponos rightly observes, that Aristotle throughout assumes the
transformations to proceed in a straight line. Only on. this

ee eee errr

B. 5. 332 14-333" 10 229

assumption is it true that each new transformation implies a new
contrariety, and that the preceding ‘elements’ must possess
contrary qualities corresponding to all the contrarieties. On
Aristotle’s own theory, the contrariety dry—moist (e. g.) is the basis
of éwo transformations, viz. of Fire into Air (or vice versa) and of
Water into Earth (or vice versa). But, according to the theory
which Aristotle has in mind in his present criticism, a ‘ middle-
element ’—e. g. Air—is transformed ‘upwards’ zx virtue of one
contrariety into Fire and zx virtue of another contrariety ‘ down-
wards’ into Water. Fire, again, is supposed to be transformed
‘upwards’ into a totally new ‘element’ (> 33 «is ... dvaxappe,
i.e. the new ‘element’ cannot be reached either by cyclical trans-
formation or by reversion in a straight line): the basis of this
transformation, therefore, must be a totally new contrariety. And
since we cannot suppose that Fire suddenly develops the contrary
in question out of nothing, we must assume that this contrary
has been passed on to Fire from Air and from all preceding
‘elements’ (if there are any) in the straight line of ‘upward’
transformation. :

33° 1-7. 75 Sh K ... bmdpfouow. If IL (Fire) is transformed
into a new ‘element’, ¥, this implies a new contrariety, e.g. K®,
of which one contrary (e. g. K) belongs to Fire and the other (®)
to W. Since K cannot have emerged from nowhere (see preceding
note), it must have been passed on to Fire from the ‘element’
out of which Fire itself came-to-be, i. e. K must belong to Air and
to the preceding members of the series (if any there be). The
same argument applies, if W be further transformed into another
new ‘ element’: hence if the transformation continues ad znjfinitum,
there must be an infinity of contrarieties (i.e. an infinity of
contrary qualities) in each single ‘ element’.

In 33% 1-3 (ro 69 K . . . dAAyAa) Aristotle begins a different
argument, which is dropped because it assumes that all the
‘elements’ (Earth, Water, Air, Fire) are transformed into one
another. This assumption admits cyc/ica/ transformation and
is therefore incompatible with the theory which he is criticizing.
Hence, though Aristotle has zz fact proved that his,opponents are
bound to admit cyclical transformation (* 32 12-14, 32 15-30),
he is ready, for the sake of argument, to suppose (33% 3) that the
transformation of all the ‘elements’ into one another has not yet
been proved.

33° Q-I0. tooattas ... mAelous. ‘It will have to pass through

230 COMMENTARY

such a vast number of contrarieties—and indeed even-more than
any determinate number.’ So Philoponos interprets, apparently
rightly.

332 10-13. dor . . . évavtidryntes. (i) Some ‘elements’ will
never come-to-be at all, viz. those which are separated from the
‘element’, with which the process of transformation starts, by an
infinite number of intervening ‘ elements’.

(ii) Even the transformation of e. g. Air into its next neighbour,
Fire, will be impossible. For (cf. 33* 3-7) Air and Fire will each
contain an infinite number of qualities, corresponding to the infinite
number of contrarieties demanded by the infinitely-extended
line of transformations. But it is impossible for a thing with an
infinite number of qualities to come-to-be or (we might add) to
pass-away. Hence Air will never pass-away and Fire will never
come-to-be.

33° 13-15. ylverar... €otat. Aristotle’s argument here appears
to be unsound. He has proved (cf. * 33%1-7) that each new
‘element’ adove Fire in the ‘upward’ line of transformation
implies a new contrariety: and from this it follows that a contrary
from each new contrariety must belong to all the ‘ elements’ de/ow
Fire. Similarly, if we suppose the line of transformation to be
reversed, each new ‘element’ de/ow Fire in the ‘downward’
transformation implies a new contrariety, a contrary from which
must belong to all the ‘elements’ adove Fire.

But it does not follow from this that the elements above and
below Fire are identical, since they will not all have the same
contraries (i.e. qualities). If e.g. Fire gua K changes into W gua
®, all the ‘elements’ de/ow Fire will possess the contrary K:
whilst ¥, and all the ‘elements’ adove it, will possess the con-
trary ®.

What Aristotle says is that ‘all the contrarieties of the * ele-
ments” above Fire must belong to the ‘ elements” below Fire,
and wice versa’: but we cannot infer from this that the ‘ elements’
are identical. The contrarieties hot-cold and dry—moist belong to
Earth, Air, Fire, and Water on Aristotle’s own theory: but these
‘elements’ are not on that account ‘all of them one’.

B. 6-7

33° 16—34> 30. Caupdoee . . . TaAXa. On the connexion of
these two chapters with B, 1-4, see * 28> 26—352 23. They may

B. 5. 333%10 — 6. 333° 23 231

be summarized as follows. (i) If the ‘elements’ are incapable
of transformation—i. e. ultimately-distinct kinds of matter, ‘eternal’
(as e. g. Empedokles maintained)—they cannot be quantitatively
compared. Hence Empedokles had no right to say they were
all egua/ (332 16-34). (ii) There follows a general attack on the
theory of Empedokles. (a) He cannot recognize growth, but
only increase by addition or apposition (3335-3). (b) He
cannot explain the yéveo.s and the perpetuation of the various
types of compound natural bodies. He recognizes, indeed, that
if the consilience of the ‘elements’ is to form a definite compound

(e.g. bone), it cannot be ‘fortuitous’, but must be governed by

a certain ‘proportion’. But he does not explain what causes this
‘proportional consilience’ (33> 3-18). (c) Nor does he see that
the ‘ excellence’ and the ‘ good’ of each compound natural body
are not due to the ‘mingling’, but to the cause determining the
proportion in which the ‘elements’ are ‘mingled’ (33> 19-20).
(d) His account of motion is abstract, inadequate, and incon-
sistent (33> 22—34*9). (e) His theory leaves psychical pheno-
mena and psychical changes inexplicable (34% 9-15).

(iii) The formation of compounds (the dpovopepy) out of the
‘elements’ presents a serious difficulty not only for theories like
that of Empedokles, but even for theories which (like Aristotle’s)
admit transformation of the ‘elements’ and recognize the genuine
emergence of a new product out of two or more constituents.

For (a) how are we to distinguish the coming-to-be of a com-
pound out of two or more ‘elements’ from the coming-to-be of
one ‘element’ out of another? And (b) what is combination?
How can x and y combine to form a 2, which is neither x nor y, nor
the indeterminate substratum of both, but a compound in which
« and y are modified and fused ? (34°15 -— 7).

In solving these problems, Aristotle explains how he conceives
the action—passion of contrary on contrary in the process
of combination which issues in the formation of a dpovomepés
(34> 8-go). ’

33° 19-20. taita... mdvta: Empedokles, fr. 17, 1. 27 (Diels,
p. 179). In the same fragment Strife is said to be dradavrov
dxdvty, and Love ton pijkés re wAdros Te (Il. 19, 20).

33° 20-23. ei . ... adro. If the ‘elements’ are comparable in
amount or in bulk (#20 xara 7d zroodv, SC. cvpBAyrd), there must
be something common to them—an identical something which,
e.g. as Air, has ten times the bulk that ithasas Water. But if so,

232 COMMENTARY

the way is at once open for the transformation of Air into Water
and vice versa.

33° 23-27. ef S8€ ... Sdvarai mm, +Empedokles’ ‘elements’,
since they are incapable of transformation (cf. * 15® 4-8), are not
’ * quantitatively comparable’ in the sense e.g. that ten xorvdar
of Air result from one xorvAn of Water. But can we compare
them quantitatively in respect to their powers-of-action ? Can we
measure e. g. the cooling power of Air and Water, and equate one
kotvhn of the latter with ten of the former in this respect?
Aristotle answers this question in the negative; see the next
note. For the meaning of dvvarar (and dvvapeis, * 28, 32), cf.
* o7b 22-31.

33° 27-34. ein... Adyov, When A: B::C:D, A and C, even
if they belong to enttrely different ‘kinds’, are ‘one’ or ‘the same’
kar dvadoyiav (or dvadoyia). Thus, if the spring is to the river
as the heart is to the animal, the spring is évaAoyia ‘one’ with the
heart. They are comparable in so far as they fulfil corresponding
functions in their respective spheres (cf. Alexander’s com-
mentary on Metaph. 1016 34-35). So(Z£th. Nic. 1096» 28-29)
if vision is in the body what intelligence is in the soul, vision and
intelligence are avadoyia ‘the same’ and may both be called
‘good’ in ‘the same’, i. e. in a corresponding, sense.

Now suppose that the heat of one ‘ element’ corresponds to the
whiteness of another, so that ‘the first is hot as the second is
white’, the two dvvapers (heat and whiteness) will be comparable
kat dvadoyiav, though they, and the ‘elements’, may remain
irreducibly different. For the comparison is not quantitative and
does not imply the presence of anything identical (any common
unit of measurement) in the comparables. Empedokles, there-
fore, might consistently have said that the ‘elements’ were
comparable as guaiia in respect to their ‘powers’. This would
mean that the qualities of the ‘elements’ corresponded to one
another ; e. g., that as it is the function of Fire to burn, so it is the
function of Water to cool. And Empedokles would be entitled
to say that the ‘elements’ were all émova, ‘analogous’ or ‘similar’.
The four terms in such an dvadoyia are treated simply as guada,
not as guania: and the identity of the Adyos between each pair
signifies therefore mere ‘similarity’, not ‘equality’ (cf. * 29-30
708... igov).

But Empedokles said that the ‘elements’ were all eguaZ. Now
it is only when the terms in an dvadoyia are guanta that the

a a

nas
’

Be 61333923 —> 3 233

‘correspondence’ signifies, equality. If 2:4::8:16, then we
may speak of the identity of the Adyo as an ‘ equality’ (for 2=-8) -
or again of 2 and 8 being ‘equally’ related to their respective
partners, for the relation is in each case a half. Empedokles,
therefore, must be contending that the ‘elements’, although
irreducibly different, are quantitatively comparable zz respect to
their powers-of-action (see preceding note: and cf. Aleteor. 340
13-17, where the unnamed thinker is rightly identified with
Empedokles by Alexander).

But quantitative comparison in this sense (i.e. ‘equating ’) is
incompatible with the ‘ unchangeableness’ of the ‘elements’. For
we cannot ¢hus compare disparate dvvapes, or irreducibly different
qualities (e.g. hot with white, or hot with cold). The terms in
the dvadoyia, if they are to be ¢#us compared, must be different
amounts of the same. We shall be dealing simply with one xorvAy
and ten xorvAau of cooling substance (cf. 33% 25), or with so-much
and many-times-as-much hot substance (cf. 33*32-33). The
qualitative differences of Air and Water, or of Fire and ‘Air,
cannot come into the dvadoyia at all. What we really have is :—
‘one pint exhibits x degrees of heat or cold: how many degrees
will ¢ez pints exhibit?’ And the only possible answer is ‘ten
times x’: i.e. the Adyos will not be egual, but greater (33° 34
TOLOvTOV, SC. wAciw OF peilw).

33° 30-34. Gromov . . . Adyov. ‘Thus it is manifestly absurd
that the simple bodies, though not transformable, are comparable
not merely as “corresponding”, but by a measure of their
powers ; i.e. that so-much Fire is comparable with many-times-
that-amount of Air, as being “ equally” or “similarly” hot. For
the same thing, if it be greater in amount, will, since it belongs to
the same kind as the thing of less amount with which it is being

compared, have its vaéio correspondingly increased.’

33* 32-33. toov... dpoiws. I have followed the reading of EJ
(cf. @): but I suspect that Aristotle wrote edther tows Oeppov
7) dpoiws Or icov 7 Gpotov,

33°35—%3. AAA. . . adgovdpeva. On Aristotle’s conception
of ‘growth’, see A. 5 and * 20> 34—21%29. Aristotle himself —
applies the term metaphorically to the spreading of fire, cf.
*22415. The quotation from Empedokles is given as fr. 37 by
Diels (p. 186: cf. p. 686) who quotes Lucretius, ii. 1114 ff., in
support of déuas (HJ) against yévos (EFL).

In Empedokles aifjp means ‘ Air’, not ‘Fire’ (cf. Burnet,

234 COMMENTARY

pp. 228-229), as Aristotle is well aware: cf. * 3493. _ That ‘ Fire
increases by Fire’, therefore, must be derived from a lost verse
of Empedokles, unless it is merely an inference of Aristotle’s own.

The first avée (331) is probably intransitive, although the
second is transitive. Aristotle would hardly have said ‘ Empe-
dokles increases Fire by Fire’.

33° 4-9. Ta... €datav; The yéveous of things which come-to-
be by a natural process is uniform: and the uniformity is either
absolute or highly regular. Breaches of the uniformity, when
they occur, are not attributed to gdvois as their cause, but to
chance. The problem therefore, which Empedokles ought to
solve, is:—‘What determines this uniformity in the yéveous
of natural products ?’

In > 5 wd¢ (which EFL omit) is necessary : cf. the corresponding
formula (Phys. 196” 10-11) dpdpev Ta pev del doatrws yuvdmeva
Ta 8 ds ext odd.

The meaning of 76 airéparov and rvxy, and the distinction
between them, are discussed in the Physics (195 31—197 37).
The distinction is irrelevant here, and Aristotle mentions both
only in order to cover all possible cases. Thus at 34%2 he
employs the term rvxy, though (according to the distinction as
drawn in the Physics) he ought to have spoken of 76 airdéuarov.

With 33>3-18, and again with 34% 9-15, the reader should
compare de Anima 408* 18-23 and 409 23— 410° 22.

339-11. 7... Twi. The distinction between fortuitous and
proportionally determinate ‘consilience of the elements’, and the
explanation of the formation of bone by a mingling of the
‘elements’ in a certain proportion, are ascribed to Empedokles
elsewhere ; cf. JMetaph. 993*17, and de Anima 410*1-6 where
Aristotle quotes the first three lines of fr. 96 (Diels, p. 199).

We must therefore refer to Empedokles the suggestion that
bone results éay di ovvreO7 (bg): and we must regard xaé’
& éxeivds dyow as covering the whole sentence od... Twi
( 9-11). :

33°11. tovtou, sc. tod Adyw twi cuveNOovrwv yiyverba. The
singular is required by the sense of the passage.

33> 12-13. GAMA... aittov. According to Empedokles, Love
‘associates’ and thus causes the union of all things in the
‘Sphere’; whilst Strife ‘dissociates’ and thus breaks up the
‘Sphere’. But Aristotle (cf. Wetaph. 985% 21-29, 10008 24 —} 12,
&c.) points out that Love, in bringing all things together, destroys

NE —————————— el

B. 6. 333% 4-17 | 235

the individuality of each: and that Strife, in ‘ dissociating ’, brings
into distinctive being the various constituents of the universe
(cf. * 158-11: Burnet, pp. 232- —233).

The same criticism is clearly in Aristotle’s mind at 33° 20-22
(kairo... . . tadra): perhaps, therefore, we ought to read that
sentence immediately after airiov (» 13).

33°13. todo, sc. the cause of the ‘ proportional consilience ’
to which Empedokles attributes the yéveous e. g. of bone.

33° 14-15. 4d’... now. Empedokles, fr. 8 (Diels, p. 175):
cf. next note, and * 14> 7-8.

33> 15-16. téxn . . . éruxev. According to Empedokles, fr. 8
(cf. the paraphrase in AZXG. 957% 36—» 16), what is supposed to
be coming-to-be or death is really ‘only a mingling and a divorce of
what has been mingled : but it is called coming-to-be amongst men’.
Aristotle is here parodying the last line of this fragment, divors 8
émt rors évoudlera dvOpwroicw. He reminds us of the original by
the mere sound of the phrase (émi rots évopalerar), of which he
has entirely altered the construction and the meaning.

‘And mene, not proportion, is the name given to these
occurrences ’, viz. to pigis and ddAAakis pyéevtwv.

For the idiom, dvopdleobo. éxi tux, see Stallbaum’s note on
Plato, Apc. 470 b and the passages there quoted.

33? 15. emt tots dvopdterar. I have restored rots from J’s ro
ioov (cf. I ‘ad equale nominatur’), which arose from the re-
duplication of the first syllable of évoyd€erar. Instead of rots, FHL
have rovros and DE rovrwv. But in E wy is corrected out of an
earlier reading and ous is written above it.

33° 16-20. tav . .. émawet. Cf. 35> 6-7, where Aristotle says
that the final cause of the things that come-to-be is 7 pophi Kat TO
eldos: todto 8 éotiv 6 Adyos 6 6 THS Exadorou ovaias. :

‘The formula expressing the essential nature’ of a dovopepés
(like bone) is the Adyos rijs pigews of its constituents (cf. * 14° 19),
i.e. the scheme of proportions constituting the plan of the com-
bination. This ‘ combining-formula’ (a) adequately expresses the
‘form’ (and is therefore the scientific definition) of the 6 Smouoptepes 5
and (b) states the normal or perfect davelogmest of the dpovopepés,
its dvouws in the sense of 76 réAos THs yeveoews (cf. e. g. Metaph.
1015 10-11), i.e, its ‘good’.

The basis of the doctrine, is Plato’s Phélebus, e.g. 25 d-26d,
64 c—65 a.

33° 17. 1d odtws éxew, sc. being a compound such that the

236 COMMENTARY

consilience of its constituents has been governed by a certain
proportion and not by chance.

33°18. odSév . . . X€yev: an allusion to the title of Empedokles’
poem. His work [epi dicews tells us nothing about Nature.

33? 19-20. 6... émawet. Cf. Metaph. 984> 32—985* 10, where
Aristotle says that ‘Empedokles, though he expressed himself
imperfectly, really regarded Love as the cause of all the goods
in the universe, and Strife as the cause of all the evils’.

Since Love brings things together, the pigs, to which alone
Empedokles ascribed the formation of the ‘ perfect’ or ‘ normal’
compound, is no doubt the work of Love.

33° 20-22. kairo. . . . taéta: cf. * 33> 12-13. According to
Empedokles, Love formed the Deity (i.e. the Sphere, cf. fr. 27,
28, 29; Diels, pp. 183-184) out of the ‘elements’: and ¢hen Strife
‘ dissociates’ it and separates out the ‘ elements ’ again (cf. * 15 4—
8, *15%15-19). The ‘elements’, therefore, are Zrior to the Sphere
(cf. 15225): and Empedokles (fr. 6; Diels, p. 175) gives them
the names of Gods, viz. Zeus, Hera, Aidoneus, and Nestis (cf.
Burnet, p. 229). He also speaks of Love and Strife as dacpoves
(fr. 59; Diels, p. 190).

What then is the cause of the original separate being of the
‘elements ’, before Love had ‘associated ’ them to form the Sphere ?
They must, Aristotle argues (de Caelo 301%15~-20), have been
‘separated out’ of some prior unity, since Love formed the
Cosmos é« dvaxexpiméevwv Tov oToxeiwy : yet this original dvaKpors
cannot be the work of Strife, for Strife can ‘dissociate’ only the
already-formed Sphere.

33> 22-26. er... mws. Aristotle proceeds (33> 22—34*9) to
criticize Empedokles’ account of motion. He finds fault with
it firstly because it is vague, devoid of scientific precision (> 22
dmhas, i. q. ddiopicrws : cf. Bonitz, Jud. 76> 30 ff., 77 5 ff.).

Thus, e.g., Empedokles (cf. fr. 20; Diels, p. 180) attributes
the formation of organisms (plants, fish, sea-birds, beasts, man)
to Love, and their dissolution to Strife. The separate limbs
or organic parts come together because Love sets them moving :
and the organism is disintegrated because Strife divides it.

But this is no explanation, unless indeed Empedokles means,
by ‘ Love’ and ‘ Strife’, forces whose very nature it is to initiate
respectively movements of integration and disintegration. And
if that was his meaning, he ought to have adopted the recognized
scientific procedure. For the man of science explicitly assumes

B, 6. 333” 18-33 237

the ‘that’ and the ‘what’ (the ‘ being’ and the ‘ nature’) of the
substances which he proves to contain certain essential properties :
and he explicitly assumes the ‘what’ (i.e. the meaning) of the
properties whose inherence he demonstrates. In other words,
the man of science either defines or posits or demonstrates the
constituents of his subject-matter. (For the doctrine of the
Posterior Analytics, which Aristotle is here assuming, and for
the functions assigned to dépuopds and imdbeors in the logical
structure of a ‘science’, see Introd. §§ 7-9.) If, therefore,
Empedokles’ account of motion had been precise, he would not
have been content to say that ‘ Love and Strife set things moving’
(b23 dur, ig. dru: cf. 37°15; Bonitz, Jud. 200" 39 ff.). He
would either (i) have stated explicitly ‘I assume that there is
a force—viz. Love—whose nature it is to initiate such-and-such
a movement, and another force—viz. Strife—whose nature it
is to initiate such-and-such a movement’; or (ii) he would have
demonstrated that ‘to bring together’ and ‘ to force asunder’ are
‘properties’ which must characterize Love and Strife respectively.

33> 25-26. % dxpiBds . . . mws. These alternatives qualify
amodetéa. Perhaps we have no right to demand an exact demon-
stration, like that of the mathematician, in the sphere of dvovxy.
But Empedokles ought to have attempted some kind of proof:—
an inference from consequent to ground, or (e.g.) a dialectical proof.

Bekker’s conjecture (526 dyés for dAAws) is tempting at first
sight : but it does not really solve the difficulty. For presumably
we must identify (i) the exact demonstration with drddegis rod
Sudrt, and (ii) the /axer demonstration with dddegis tod dre (cf.
Post. Anal, 78* 22 ff.). Besides these two ways of demonstrating
no other way is left : for the probable reasoning of the dialectician,
to which Aristotle appears to be referring, is not dwrddevéis at all.
Hence Aristotle’s language remains inaccurate, whether we read
dAAws yé wws (‘in some other way’) or das yé wus (‘in some way
or other’). |

33> 26-33. érv... paddov. I (> 26-g0). There is natural, as
opposed to compulsory or unnatural, movement. For (a) the

‘simple’ bodies appear to move in two different ways, viz. ‘ by

compulsion’ and ‘naturally’: (b) these two kinds of movement
are contrary to one another, and (c) ‘compulsory’ movement
actually occurs (i. e. according to Empedokles himself, as Aristotle
infers from his statements: cf. Bonitz). Hence its contrary,
‘natural’ movement, must also occur in fact.

238 COMMENTARY

II (» 30-33). Is Love the cause of the xatural_ movement
(> 30 ravryy, sc. tiv Kara piow) of the ‘simple’ bodies? From
what Empedokles says (when e.g. he ascribes the formation of
organisms to Love, fr. 20) we should expect an affirmative answer
to this question. Yet in fact, it would seem, the answer must be
‘No’ ( 30 # o¥;). For Love brings all the ‘ elements’ together,
‘associating’ them to form the Sphere: whilst Strife ‘ dissociates ’
the Sphere, moving all the ‘elements’ apart. Now the xatural
movement of Earth (e. g.) moves it downwards, i. e. away from the
other ‘ elements’, and thus resembles a movement of dissociation
(> 31 tH ya Kato, SC. Kwel D Kata Piow kivyots). Hence Strife—
rather than Love—seems to cause the za¢urval movements: and
Love—rather than Strife—is contrary to nature. Empedokles
ought to have given to Love the epithets he applies to Strife—
e.g. ‘destructive’ (fr. 17, 1. 19; Diels, p. 178), ‘evil’ (fr. 20, 1. 4;
Diels, p. 180).

Philoponos, to judge from his paraphrase, seems to have read
b 26-33 very differently: but it is not possible to infer with cer-
tainty what he had before him.

33° 27. 1a odpata, i.g. ra d@wAG oopara: so also > 34 (avrav
TOV cwpdtwv), 3641, 37°8 and Io.

33> 33—349 5. GmdGs . . . filats. Since, according to Empe-

dokles, Love and Strife are the sole causes of motion, the

‘elements’ have absolutely no zwheren¢t motion or rest (° 33 daAds
goes with ovdeuia éoriv). Yet this is not only a paradox, but
incompatible with his own statements. For though Strife zmztiated
the disintegration of the Sphere, the ‘elements’ were borne
asunder by movements of their own. Thus Empedokles himself
attributes to Fire a zatural tendency to move upwards; and to
Air a downward movement, which he contrasts with its occasional
fortuitous motion upwards and therefore clearly regards as xatural.

In > 34 1 follow EF and read xwe?, ‘ unless Love or Strife are
actually setting the simple bodies in motion’.

In > 35 Aristotle adds otdé povy: for, according to his own
theory, the ‘rest’ of each ‘element’ at its proper place is the
effect of that inherent’ tendency to movement which constitutes
its ‘ nature’ (cf. e.g. Introd. § 10).

34% 3. ottm . . . GAAws. Empedokles, fr. 53 (Diels, p. 189).
The same verse is quoted in the Physics (196%22-23), where
Aristotle substitutes ayp for aifyp in his explanatory paraphrase :

cf. * 33" 35 — > 3.

Be OR GSS" 27 7) 834".7 239

34° 4-5. tmepuxévar... pilars. Empedokles, fr. 51 and 54
(Diels, p. 189). ‘The present passage is the only source of fr. 54.

34°5-9. dua... é&pxyn. According to Empedokles, the Order
of the World is the same zow, in the reign of Strife, as it was
formerly in the reign of Love (cf. * 15414). Hence neither
Strife nor Love can be the force which first set the ‘ elements’
moving and thus initiated the persistent Order. Strife and Love
are reduced to secondary causes—causes of ¢his and that
particular kind of motion, which presuppose an originative source
of motion in general. But Empedokles does not tell us what
this unknown first cause of motion is.

In *g I have ventured to read «i y’ éotiv éxeivo apyn, ‘if at least
we assume that “first mover” to be an originative source of
motion in general’.

34°15. érépas...Oewpias. Cf. de Anima, A. 4 and 5, especially
408% 18-23, 409) 23 ff., where Empedokles’ failure to account for
the soul is exposed very forcibly and in more detail.

34°15—>7. wept 8€... nv. Aristotle is about to discuss the
formation of the éuouopepy out of the simple bodies. As a pre-
liminary, he divides all theories into (i) those which admit, and
(ii) those which deny, that the ‘elements’ are transformed into
one another. The theories of the Pythagoreans (cf. * 34> 4) and
of Aristotle himself belong to the first group: whilst the theory of
Empedokles is typical of the second.

(i) Theories which admit transformation of the ‘elements’
into one another necessarily also regard the ‘elements’ as
differentiations of acommon substratum ; and vice versa (34* 16-18).
And (ii) the denial of the reciprocal transformation of the
‘elements’ is equivalent to the denial that any ‘element’ can
come-to-be out of any ‘element’ ¢aken singly, except in the sense
in which bricks can come-to-be out of a wall. Fire, e. g., taken
singly, is not transformed into any other ‘element’: all that
_ Empedokles could admit, is that some other ‘ element’ might be
extracted out of Fire by a mechanical analysis (3418-20: the
words pnd... wAivOovs are an explanatory amplification of pi
rowdow @ adAynAwv yéveow). Such a theory will find it difficult
to explain how anything—e.g. any dpovopepés—can come-to-be
out of a plurality of ‘ elements’ (34% 20-21: éé éxeivwr is contrasted
with ws é éxdorov). The only explanation available for
Empedokles is that flesh (e. g.) comes-to-be by a mechanical
synthesis ; i.e. that Earth, Air, Fire, and Water ‘compose’ the

240 ~ COMMENTARY

épovozepy Much as bricks and stones ‘compose’ a wall. But this
is clearly inadequate (34% 26 —» 2). :

Even for the theories of the first group there is here a serious
difficulty. Water comes-to-be out of Fire, and Fire out of
Water, because Fire and Water are differentiations of a common
substratum. But how are we to account for the yéveous of the
dpovopepn—e. g. Of flesh and marrow—out of Earth, Air, Fire,
and Water? (34*21-26). How can there be a resultant which is
neither one of its constituents, zov a mosaic of them all, zor yer
the common substratum of which they are the differentiations ?
(34> 2-7).

34° 23-24. éx... mip. ‘Water’ and ‘ Fire’ are selected merely
for illustration (cf. also 34%32). According to Aristotle’s own
doctrine all four ‘elements’ are combined in every épovopepés :
cf. e.g. B. 8, * 142 19, * 27% 33 —b6,

34° 26-2. éxeivors. .. pépous: cf. * 27 3328417. The
conception of a compound, which is éuovopepés, is that of a whole
formed by chemical combination and capable of chemical analysis.
But theories like that of Empedokles can only offer us the
conception of an aggregate, or mosaic, formed by mechanical
synthesis and capable of mechanical analysis. The so-called
ptypa or ‘Sphere’ of Empedokles is in fact a mere shuffle of the
‘elements’, in which they persist unchanged in quality, though
divided into minute particles: and the same will apply to every
compound, and therefore to every éovopepés, within the ‘ Sphere’.
But this is not only contrary to the true conception of the
dpovomepy: it collides with the facts. Flesh, e.g., can in fact
yield Fire and Water (and also, as Aristotle might have added,
Earth and Air) from any and every part of itself. Any part of
flesh can indifferently be converted into flame, into liquid, into
the dry dust of putrefaction, and into ‘air’ or gas (cf. e.g.
*29' 24-26). But this would be impossible if flesh were
a mere shuffle or mosaic. It would, indeed, be possible to
extract e.g. Fire from one part of flesh and Water from another,
as one can extract a stone ere and a brick ¢here from a wall: but
_ we could not extract both Fire and Water indifferently from
every part.

34° 32-34. dowep ... yevéoOar. The purpose of this illustration
is to explain the precise meaning of the chemical analysis which
every dpovopepés Can undergo.

34" 34-35. Todto. .. dgw. I insert 7d in * 35 before é« rs...

a

i
7
;
.
}
4

a ees ——s Se ee

oe Se i

a 7. 334% 23 —b 16 241

dppw, and take the clause as epexegetic of rodro. Cf. Philoponos
(p. 274) kara tov avbrov tpdrov, pyai, TodTo 5) To €& Srovodv popiov
dppw yevérOor kart THs capKos ovpBaiver.

34> 4. otov...yfs. Aristotle selects ‘the cold and hot, or Fire
and Earth’ as examples and is probably thinking of ‘ Parmenides’,
i. e. the Pythagoreans (cf. * 306 13-19): but the criticism applies,
as he is well aware, to his own theory too.

34> 8-30. dp’...7&\da. Aristotle now solves the problem
and explains how the yéveous of the duovopepy out of the ‘ elements ’
differs from the transformation of one ‘element’ into another.
In the main this passage is a mere restatement of the doctrine
already enunciated in A. ro (cf. *27>%22-31, * 284 29-31,
* 29> 24-26), but two new features are briefly indicated. Thus,
(i) >14-16 give us a hint of the sense in which the ‘ elements’,
gua constituting a duoopepes, are oupBAnra: and (ii) > 27-28
indicate how Aristotle would have explained the emergence of
different dpowpepy from the combination of the same _ con-
stituents.

Aristotle bases his solution (i) on the distinction between
(a) the absolutely or ‘completely’ and (b) the relatively or ‘ more
or less’ hot, cold, dry, moist (» 8-16): and (ii) on the reciprocal
action—passion of contraries (> 20-24).

348-16. dp... tovodtov; (a) The ‘ sate -hot’ is not in
any sense echaklly cold: but it is dvvdme cold, because its
substratum is the substratum also of the cold. Hence that which
is completely-hot may become cold, and there is always a tendency
for the substratum to pass from one extreme to the contrary.
(b) The ‘ relatively-hot’, on the other hand, is an ‘intermediate’
which is actually both hot and cold, though neither completely-hot
nor completely-cold. It is the compromise, resulting from the
reciprocal action—passion of a completely-hot and a completely-cold
which were present in amounts approximately balanced or equal.
It actually possesses the ‘ powers of action’ which characterize
both the completely-hot and the completely-cold, but in a reduced
degree. It is in fact a ‘tempered-hot’, which relatively to the
completely-hot is cold and relatively to the completely-cold is
hot. Thus it is duvéme. both hot and cold, in the sense that the
heat and cold, which it actually possesses, are present in it in
a reduced degree (cf., for this sense of dvvamer, * 27> 22-31).

But the tempered-hot must not be confused with the vAy.
The daz is neither hot nor cold, but capable of becoming either.

2254 R

242 COMMENTARY

The ‘intermediate’, or the tempered-hot, is both hot and cold.
It is a compromise, in which the completely-hot has reduced its
contrary to a relatively-cold and been itself reduced to a relatively-
hot. In this reciprocal attemperament of the contraries to
a compromise participating in the characteristics of both, we
already have in principle the process which Aristotle calls pigs
(cf. brr—12 da... . GAAnAwv). But the yéveors of a dporomepés out
of the elementary qualities requires in addition a temperament of
the dry and the moist, which is in part effected by the ‘immanent’
action of the tempered-hot : cf. * 29> 24-26.

In 34> 9-10 Odrepor is the subject: 7, éora are to be taken in
the existential sense.

34> 14-16. xata...Towdtov; An ‘intermediate’ can result
only if the active-passive extremes were present in approximately
equal amounts (cf. > 23, 2828-31). But the ‘intermediate’
itself may exhibit its powers-of-heating-and-cooling in different
proportions. Thus, e.g., in ome ‘intermediate’ the power-of-
heating will be twice as great as its power-of-cooling: in another,
three times as great: in ofhers, perhaps, one-half or one-third as
great.

In other words, there is a sense in which the ‘elements’ gua
constituting the dépovopepy are ovpBdryra (cf. the criticism of
Empedokles, 33® 16-34). The constituents of the duo.opepn are
the ‘simple’ bodies gua hot, cold, dry, and moist: and these
elementary qualities form, by reciprocal action—passion, a tempered-
hot and a tempered-dry. These ‘intermediates’ differ in the
different épovomepn: but, though different, they are nevertheless
avpBArynra, because they are definable in terms of the ratio
(positive or negative) of their power-of-heating to their power-of-
cooling, or of their power-of-maintaining to their power-of-adapting
their outlines.

In > 14 4 Wypev means ‘than cold’: similarly, > 15-16 durAa-
giws... Wvxpov means ‘ potentially-hot twice as much as it is
potentially-cold’. But # rovvayriov (14) means ‘or contrari-
wise’, i.e. 7) paAXov elvar Wxpov 7 Oeppov. This possibility—viz.
that the ‘intermediate’ may exhibit an excess of cooling-power
over heating-power—is provided for at > 16 (7 Kar’ .. . towodrov).
The ratio of the heating-power to the cooling-power in an ‘ inter-
mediate’ may be e.g. 2: 1, or 3: I, or again 1: 2 or 1: 3.

34> 16-20. éorat.. . ywwdpevov. Aristotle here summarizes his
view of the way in which the épovopepy (0 17 7aAX’, i.e. all bodies

B. 7. 334? 14-30 243

other than the ‘simple’ bodies, viz. all o¥v@era: but Aristotle is
thinking primarily of the éuovopepy) result from the ‘elements’ or
the elementary qualities. At the same time, he emphasizes the
distinction * between (a) the combination of contraries, which
results in the 6movomepy, and (b) the lapsing of both contraries
into the undifferentiated matter which is the mere potentiality of
both : and thus solves the problem formulated at 34> 2-7.

The contraries, or rather the ‘elements’ (617 4 rv ororxetwv),
constitute the duovozepy in so far as they have been ‘combined ’.
They are ‘ combined ’, when both contraries in each contrariety are
preserved at a lower degree in a resultant ‘intermediate’. Hence
the ‘elements’, in so far as they are the constituents of a épov0-
pepés, result from (and contain) all the contraries, these being
preserved in them ‘potentially’. But we must understand this
‘ potential being’ of the contraries in a special sense (> 18 duvaper
mws ovtwv), viz. in the sense which has been explained (cf.
* 27> 22-31, *34>8-16). We must not suppose that the
‘elements’, gva constituting the dpuowopepés, are only ‘ potentially ’
hot, cold, dry, and moist in the sense in which the matter of these
contraries is only ‘ potentially ’—i. e. zo¢ actually—any of them:

This interpretation, which alone gives a satisfactory sense to
the passage, forces us to take éxe(vwy (> 18) as equivalent to trav
évavtiwv, and to understand 7a orovyeta in the same line as Earth,
Air, Fire, and Water, in so far as they are co-operating to form a
bpmovopepes. |

34> 19-20. kal... ywopevoy. ovrw, sc. in the manner described
at bro-12. éxeivws, sc. in the manner which alone was con-
templated as possible in the formulation of the problem (> 6-7),
viz. so that one contrary is destroyed by the other. For if the
completely-hot ‘ passes-away’, the only possible result—unless the
completely-cold takes its place—is vA.

34> 20-30. éwet... TaAXa. Aristotle completes his account by
appealing to the ‘disjunctively-articulated definition’ (Siopurpds :
cf. 23922, 29%14) or ‘law’ of the reciprocal action—passion of
contraries, which was formulated in A. 7.

One consequence of this law is that a contrary is converted
into its contrary, if the latter is present in an overwhelming or
‘dominant’ amount (23 éav pH iodgy, cf. e.g. * 28% 29-31,
* 34b 14-16): and it is owing to a conversion of this kind that
the reciprocal transformations of the ‘elements’ take place
(cf. * g1* y—32* 2). ?

R 2

244. COMMENTARY

But the formation of the duouopep7 is another consequence of
the same law. For if any two contraries are present in approxi-
mately equal amounts, their reciprocal action—passion reduces both
in degree towards a ‘mean’, and the contraries are thus ‘com-
promised’ to form an ‘intermediate ’ (cf. * 29> 24-26, * 34> 8-16).

34> 20-28. éwel... od8¢repov. The protasis extends to » 24
évavtiwv. By that time Aristotle has forgotten that he began
the sentence with ére, and the apodosis (kat mparov xrd.) is
introduced as an independent sentence.

34> 24-26. kai mp@tov. ..tovaita. There is no expressed <ira,
but it is implied. Aristotle is of course referring to two different
consequences of the action—passion of contraries (cf. * 34> 20-30),
not to two temporally successive stages in the yéveows of the
OpLOLOpEpN.

34> 27-28. évraida ... oddSérepov. evradfa, sc. at the peécor.
The tempered-hot is neither completely-hot nor completely-cold
(cf. * 34> 8-16). |

34> 28. 1d... adiaiperov. The diversity in the ‘intermediates’
(cf. * 34% 14-16), on which the difference of the various émovopepy
depends, is due to the fact that ‘the mean’ is a ‘stretch’ or
a ‘scale’, not ‘punctual’ or a ‘point’. The contraries can be
‘ compromised ’, so as to form an ‘intermediate ’, at various degrees
along a scale, or anywhere along a certain stretch.

For this familiar Aristotelian conception of a pécov which is
capable of fluctuation within certain defined limits, cf. £¢h, Wic.
€. g. 1106% 26-32, 1106 36—r1107® 2, 1173% 23-28.

34> 29. kal ta Totaita. Since no contraries except the hot and
the cold, and the dry and the moist, contribute to the formation
of the éuovoepy, We must refer-7a rovatra to the hot and the cold :
‘as well as the contraries we have used as examples’.

B. 8

34> 3I—35° 23. “Awavta ...eipytat. All the Suovopmep) must
contain all four ‘elements’ as their constituents (34° 31—35* 9).
This is confirmed by the fact that all living things—even plants—
require at least two ‘elements’ as their food (35*9-14). A note
is added to explain why Fire, alone of the ‘simple bodies ’, is
said to ‘ be fed’; and the part played by Fire in the eekoae of
the duovopepy is indicated (35% 14-21).

34> 31-32. “Amavta ...éotiv. Since there are no puxra (i. q.
pxOevra, cf. 28% 4) shite except in the sublunary sphere, we

*, _
a ees

———E———— ey

B. 7. 334% 20 — 8. 3359 14 245

must translate: ‘All the compound bodies—all of which exist in
the region belonging to the central body—are composed of’ &c.

The central body (76 péoov) is the earth, and its place (6 rod
pécou Toros) is the centre of the universe. Perhaps, however, the
phrase means simply ‘in the region about the centre’ (i.e. of
the universe) : cf. 35% 25.

34 32-34. yi...7é6m». The compounds must all contain
earth because there is more earth than anything else in the
region where they exist, that being Earth’s ‘ proper place’.

34> 34—35° 3. Uwp ... Stamimro. dv. What defines the shape
of the compound is Fire (cf. * 3514-21): but Water is essential
to every compound, if it is to possess a definite shape, for two
reasons. For (i) Water, of all the four ‘elements’, is most
characteristically iypdv (cf. * 31% 3-6), and 76 iypdv is par excellence
readily adaptable. in shape : and (ii) Water, gua iypov, gives
cohesion to the Earth in the compound. | 4. * 29> 24-26, * 29b
30-32. |

35* 3-9. yi... évéotar. Every compound must contain Earth
and Water, as we have seen. But Earth (cold-dry) and Water
(cold—moist) are contrary respectively to Air (hot—moist) and Fire
(hot—dry), so far as one oiaia can be contrary to another (cf. * 318
1-3). Now (cf. e.g. * 29> ro-11) the constituents, out of which
a compound comes-to-be, must be contrary to one another.
Hence the compound, since it contains cold-dry, must also contain
the contrasted extremes ‘hot-moist’ (Air): and since it contains
cold—moist, it must also contain the contrasted extremes ‘ hot—dry’
(Fire).

35° 9-14. paprupetv . . . dpdew.. We can infer the constituents
of the duovopepeés. from the constituents of its food, because the
food, in so far as it zs food (i.e. actually nourishes) must have
- been ‘assimilated’: cf. * 20b 3421429, *21> 35—22%4. Now
the food of all living things consists of moist and dry (cf. e.g. de
Part, Anim. 650% 3-4). It must therefore contain at least two of
the ‘simple bodies’: for moist and dry cannot be coupled
together to constitute a single ‘ element’ (cf. 30% 31-33). And in
fact all living things—plants as well as animals—require in their
food Earth (cold-dry) and Water (cold—moist) : cf. e. g. de Gen.
Anim. 762% 12-13. Hence the époopepy in plants and animals
are said to consist of Water and Earth (Meteor. 384? 30-31: cf.
above, * 31% 3-6).

_ Even plants (Aristotle here points oak 35* 11-14) do not live

246 COMMENTARY

by Water alone, as careless observers might suppose.. They are
nourished zazurally by Water impregnated with Earth and
artificially by Water mixed with manure, which is a kind of Earth.

In *14 E reads xémpa over dpdev. This is no doubt a mere
note, but it gives the right sense. Philoponos says the yewpyoi
mix with the Water riv Kxorpwdn (sc. yqv) Aris Kal aupodors Kal
depwdous peréxer ovcias: but Aristotle is not here concerned with
Fire and Air.

35° 14-21. émel...Spors. The meaning of this obscure passage
seems to be as follows :— |

(a) The food, i.e. the dry and the moist, is par excellence the
vAn of the dmoropepés. It is the inner heat (the hot-cold or
tempered-hot) which, by digesting the food, converts it into the
substance of the émovopepés, or ‘ forms’ it (cf. * 29% 24-26).

(b) What ‘is fed’, and what ‘ grows’, is (cf. * 21> 17 —224 33,
* 21b 24-25, * 21b 25-28) the ‘form’ or ‘figure’ taken along with
the matter. Now this ‘form’ or ‘ figure’ is constituted by the Fire
in the make-up of the éovopepés. Fire alone of the four ‘simple
bodies "—or most of them all—is of the nature of ‘form’. For
the ‘form’ of anything lies in its continent limits or outline.
And (i) Fire by nature moves towards the outermost sphere of
the Lower Cosmos, thus circumscribing Air, Water, and Earth, as
their containing outline (cf. * 22> 2-3): and (ii) within each
dpotopepés, Fire may be said to constitute its outline. For Fire’s
movement towards ‘the limit’ will take it to the limit of the
OpovopepeEs.

35°16. 4 popdy. In A. 5 (21> 27-28) oyqya is used instead of
poppy.

35° 17-18. tpépecOat .. . Aéyouow. Cf. de Vita et Morte 469»
21 ff., Meteor. 354» 33 ff.; Theophrastos, fr. iii, 1, § 4 (Wimmer,

ili, p. 51); Gilbert, pp. 4431, 4451.

B. g-10

35% 24—37° 33. ‘Emel... xpdvov. In these chapters Aristotle
(i) treats of the four causes of the yevyra cat POaprd, thus fulfilling
his original plan (cf. 14 1-6), and (ii) adds a note (37° 17-33) in
confirmation of his theory of the efficient cause.

The account here given of the material cause (35° 32 — 5) is
a restatement in somewhat modified terms of the doctrine implied
in A, 3. As regards the formal cause Aristotle briefly repeats
the doctrine assumed in his criticism of Empedokles (cf. * 33»

ven
De ee re

inh tt il eS oon,
— * =

week

me! ~
tos,

B. 8. 335°14 — 9. 335% 29 247

16-20). He defines it as the ‘formula expressing the essential
nature ’, and thus identifies it with the final cause, i. e. the normal
(perfect) development of the type of thing in question (356-7).
Nothing more is said of these three causes. But it is incidentally
shown (36> 26-34) that the continuity of coming-to-be contributes
to the perfection of the scheme of things—an indication of the
line which a teleological explanation of yéveous would w/tmately
take for Aristotle. The rest of the treatise on the causes is
devoted to the efficient cause. Aristotle shows (i) that a complete
explanation of yéveo.s is impossible without the recognition of its
efficient cause (35 7—36* 12); (ii) what the efficient cause of
yéveots and Oopa is (36%14— 10); and (iii) how his theory
accords with observed facts and explains a well-known problem
(36> ro—37* 15).

35* 24-28. “Emel... mpdtov. We have now established that
there are yevyra cal POapra—that yéveors adn and $Oopa. actually
occur—in the region about the centre (cf. * 34> 31-32), i.e. in
the Lower Cosmos. It remains for us to determine the number
and the ature of the ‘originative sources of all coming-to-
be alike’, i. e. of yeveous considered as the universal of which the
yevéoets Of the various types of yevyra are specific forms ( 26
maons yeverews spoiws: cf. *14%2, * 18% 25-27). This is the
right procedure: for it is a principle of method that ‘a grasp of
the true theory of any universal facilitates the understanding of its
specific forms’ (# 27-28. ovrw is merely the antecedent of éray...
mpotov. The reading of FHJ, ra xa’ éxaora, is supported by
Philoponos, p. 281, ll. g—10).

35% 24. yevntd. According to the manuscripts Aristotle uses both
yevytos and yevvyrds (cf. Bonitz, Znd. 150 37 ff. and 155» 12 ff.),
though I confess to a suspicion that we ought always to read
yevvyrds, even where yevytds is better attested. Above (27> 8)
I read yevvyrod with EHL: but throughout the present passage
I have retained the form with one v, which is given by EFJ and
sometimes also by H. The evidence for éyévyros (cf. 37% 20)
and yevvyrixds (cf. 36°18) is overwhelming: cf. Bonitz, nd.
5>41 and 149° 37.

35° 28-29. cioly . . . mpdtois. Though the bodies of the
Upper Cosmos—the ‘celestial bodies’—are eternal, they are
perceptible and in movement. Hence they too require material,
formal, efficient, and final causes: i.e. dpyai the same in
number, and generically the same, as the dpxai of the yevyra xat

248 © COMMENTARY

pOapra. For 1a mpara (i. q. Ta odpdvia cwpara) cf. e.g. de Caelo
288> 18-19. As contrasted with the yevyra cat POaprd, they are
sheerly actual substances, primary ‘reals’, the sources of the life
and change in the sublunary sphere: cf. e.g. Introd. §§ 3, 10,
* 368 14-18.

35* 31-32. ob ... mpwtos. The ‘celestial bodies’ require an
efficient cause for their movement, though not zpos 7d yevvqoat,
since they are dyévyra Kal apOapra (cf. * 28> 32-33).

35° 32-5. as... ph etvar. The celestial bodies (a) gua per-
ceptible, involve matter as well as ‘form’; but their matter is the
Aether and is itself eternal: and (b) gva moving, they involve
tAn wobev rot (VAN Tomiky), i.e. a something dvvardv, viz. a bzoxKei-
pevov capable of occupying successively the different points on its
orbit (cf. Introd. § 10).

But the bodies of the Lower Cosmos, inasmuch as they are
continuously undergoing yéveors and @Oopa, involve a matter
which is the subject of this dual process (35> 2-3 76 yevyrdv-Kal-
pGaprdv). Their matter is something duvamer dv, i.e. a some-
thing which at one time exists, but at another time does not
exist. We may therefore define it as 7rd duvardv elvat Kat pr
civar (35°33, 4-5). It is something which er se is not
actual, though capable of being actualized, i.e. formed. When
it is formed, a aivOeros ovata has ‘ come-to-be’, and exists. And
when that substance ‘ passes-away’, the matter has been trans-
formed, 1. e. has passed from one of its actualizations to another.

The antecedent of drep (22) is 7d duvardv elvar Kal py evar
(2 33), the intervening sentences forming a parenthesis. In ® 35
rovrwv includes (i) ‘the things which ave of necessity’ and (ii)
‘the things which of necessity ave zot’. The antecedent of rodro
(> 3) is 70 yevnrov-xai-pOaprov.

35° 6-7. ds... obctas: cf. * 33> 16-20.

35° 7—36" 12. Set... dpyova. In order to establish the need
for an investigation of the efficient cause, Aristotle divides all
preceding theories into (i) those which (like the theory of ‘ Sokrates
in the Phaedo’) tried to explain yéveots and dOopda by the formal
cause, i.e. as effects of the ‘forms’: and (ii) those which (like
the theories of the Atomists, the Pythagoreans, and Empedokles)
tried to explain yéveous and dOopd by the material cause, i.e.
as effects of the movement originating in the matter. The
inadequacy of both types of theory is to be ascribed, Aristotle
urges, to the absence of a clear recognition of the efficient cause.

!

B. 9. 335% 31—336" 12 249

35” 9. ot pev. There does not seem to be any evidence to
determine to what theories (if to any), besides that of ‘ Sokrates
in the Phaedo’, Aristotle is here referring.

35°11. émtisjoas... eipnxdow: cf. Phaedo 96 a—99 c.

35> 12-15. Gmoriera, . . . dwoBodkyvy: a rough paraphrase of
Phaedo 100 b-101 ¢.

3515-16. dor... p0opas. Aristotle is still paraphrasing the
Phaedo. Sokrates (cf. 99 e—100 b, tor d-e) thinks that ‘ provided
his taroféces are sound’ (15 radra, sc. the doctrines which
Aristotie has just summarized from the Phaedo) it ‘necessarily
follows that the Forms are causes of yéveois and pOopa.’.

35° 16-17. of 8 ... xivnow. Philoponos (p. 282, ll. 3 and 4;
p. 286, Il. 19, 28, and 29) interprets the ‘movement’ here in
question as the tpovy in the matter, by which he appears to mean
the ‘turning’ of the atoms in the theory of Leukippos and
Demokritos (cf. * 15> 33—16% 2, *16%1-2). But there is no
reason to suppose that Aristotle is thinking exclusively of the
Atomists. His description is wide enough to include e.g.
Empedokles (cf. * 158 22) and possibly Archelaos (cf. Phaedo 96 b,
with Burnet’s note ad /oc.). Moreover, part of Aristotle’s criticism
(cf. * 36% 1-12) is directed against a doctrine which we have good
reason to attribute to the Pythagoreans (cf. * 186-7, * 30>
13-19). |

35° 18-24. ei . . . mpatropévwy: criticism of the theory of
‘Sokrates in the Phaedo’. (i) The Forms and the Participants
always ave—e.g. there always is a body which can come-to-be
healthy, and there always is Health—but yéveors is intermittent ;
and (ii) at any rate in the products of réyvy (223 dvvapy, i. q.
téxvynv: cf, Burnet, Z7¢hics, Introd. § 12) we actually see a cause
other than the Forms at work. For patients or pupils do not
come-to-be healthy or learned without the action of the doctor or
the teaching of the man of science.

35° 24—367 12. ci . . . Spyava. Aristotle’s criticism of the
theories, which tried to explain yéveois by the material cause, is
based upon his own doctrine (cf. also * 35> 34-35). As the

reader will remember, avéyows requires (a) an efficient cause,

viz. the avgyrixy wuxy or 76 évov avéyrixov, which (b) employs 7é
Oeppdv as an auxiliary active force for the digestion and assimila-
tion of the food, in order that (c) the living thing may grow to
its normal stature, i.e. to its zopdy or «ides which is its ‘end’ (cf.
* 20% 8, * 20b 34214 29, * 22% 10-13). Similarly yéveous requires

250 COMMENTARY

(a) an efficient cause, viz. the ‘basal’ soul, the soul gua yevvy-
tuxy, Which (b) employs certain secondary or auxiliary forces, in
order that (c) 7d yevvevov may come-to-be. The auxiliary forces
here in question aré certain dvvaes inherent in, and constitutive
of, the matter—i.e. the elementary qualities, and specially the
‘active’ couple, viz. the hot and the cold (cf. * 29> 24-26).

Aristotle begins (35% 24-29) by praising the materialists. Their
theory is more scientific (¢voixeérepov) than that of Sokrates, for
at least they recognize that movement is required to account for
yeveots. But (* 29-31) they were wrong in supposing that this
movement originates in the matter. Matter is passive: it is
a dvvayis only in a passive sense. What initiates movement is
a dvvayus in a different sense, an active force. This objection is
confirmed ( 31-33) by an appeal to the facts. Neither in natural
yéveo.s, nor in artificial production, does the matter of itself
make the result. Hence they are wrong ( 33-35) not only in
ascribing the movement to the matter, but also in omitting the
‘more controlling cause’, viz. the ‘form’. Moreover (364 1-12),
by eliminating the formal cause, they deprive themselves of the
right to regard the ‘material forces’ (e.g. the hot and the cold)
as causes of yéveous i” any sense, even as ‘instrumental’ or auxiliary:
forces.

3526-29. 15 ydp ... Kwytikédy. ‘For what “alters” and
transfigures plays a greater part’ (sc. than the Forms) ‘ in bringing
things into being; and we are everywhere accustomed, in the
products of nature and of art alike, to look upon that which can
initiate movement as the producing cause.’

Cf. * 21> 6-10, * 24% 24—» 22, * 24> 13-18. rodro (» 27) is the
antecedent of 6 dy 7 xwyrtixdv. Failure to recognize this perhaps
gave rise to the erroneous variant (> 28) dad réyvys, ard réxvys
Bice |

35” 29-81. tis . . . Suvdpews. We speak of ‘matter’ (a) in so
far as there is a dvvapus tod mace, or (b) in so far as there is
a dvvayus in contrast to an évépyeca—a mere ‘potentiality’, or
something ‘potentially existent’, in contrast to something realized
and actual. But matter is not an dpyi peraBodjs ev dAAo—
not a dvvasus in the sense of an active or operative force. Cf. e. g.
Metaph. 1046* 9-29, 10484 25 —Po.

35° 34-35. Kal... popdyy. According to Aristotle’s own
doctrine, “he form (not the matter, as the materialists supposed,
cf. 35> 17) initiates and controls the processes, by which a work

B. 9. 335° 26—336* 12 251

of réxvy is made or a living thing in Nature brought into being.
The architect, e. g., conceives the ‘form’ which the completed
house is to exhibit—its structural plan, the scheme of synthesis
which is to be realized in the materials (the bricks and beams).
It is this ‘ form ’—the ‘ form’ as ‘in the soul’ of the architect, or as
the réxv7 oixodopuxy (cf. * 20% 18-21)—which initiates and controls
the processes of building. Similarly in the yéveors of a living
thing—e.g. of an animal or a child—the ‘form’ is the
‘controlling’ cause. For the ‘form’, implanted by the efficient
cause (i.e. by the generating parent) in the matter, initiates
therein a determinate movement or change (xivyois), which in
turn causes other succeeding changes until the matter has been
devel@ped into the offspring which is to come to birth (cf. de
Gen. Anim. 733 23 ff., with Professor Platt’s notes in his
translation ; We/aph. 1033 2g—10342.8, 1034* 33 —> 4, &c.).

Formal, final, and efficient causes, it will be observed, come
very close together in Aristotle’s explanation of zoinows and yéveots.
For the ‘form’ of the house is the ideal to be realized and the
originative source of the processes which the architect (the
so-called ‘efficient cause’) sets going. And the male parent is
the efficient cause only gva communicating the ‘form’ (i.e. the
soul, cf. * 2028, * 21> 16-17) to the embryonic matter: whilst
the final cause of the yéveo.s is the completed embodiment of
that ‘form’, i.e. the new representative of the species. As we
shall see (cf. * 36%14-18), the w/tmate formal, final, and
efficient causes are one and the same, viz. God.

36* 1-12. ér.. .. dpyava. The special form of the materialist
theory, which Aristotle 'here criticizes, is ascribed to Parmenides
by Diels (p. 110): and Philoponos says that Alexander attributed
it to ‘the followers of Parmenides’. It appears in fact to be the
doctrine—only more fully stated—which Aristotle elsewhere
ascribes to ‘Parmenides’, i.e. to the Pythagoreans criticized in
the ‘Way of Opinion’: cf. * 18> 6-7, * 29> 27, * 30% 13-19.

The Pythagorean materialists regard yéveous and Oopa as the
effects of certain forces—e. g. the hot and the cold—inherent in,
and constitutive of, the matter of which bodies consist. It is the
nature of each of these ‘elementary qualities’ or ‘ material forces’
to act or to suffer action in certain definite ways. Hence the

~ hot and the cold, and the like, are 40/4 the materials out of

which (or into which), avd the forces by means of which, all the
other things come-to-be (or pass-away).

252 COMMENTARY

Now, according to Aristotle’s own doctrine (cf. * 35> 24—36® 12),
the hot and the cold are forces inherent in, and constitutive of, the
matter of dvouxda copara: and they are employed by the efficient
cause as instrumental to its purpose of bringing 7d yevvepevov
into being. Hence (a) they are not genuine efficient causes of
yéveors and POopd, but only secondary causes. The hot, e. g., does
not originate the xivyo.s which results in the coming-to-be of
a new individual of the species: but it acts as a mediating link,
communicating to the matter the xivyow originated by 76
yevvytixév. For the hot can be itself moved in’a certain way and,
being thus moved, it can set something else moving in the same
way. And (b) they become zxstrumental to yéveous, only so far as
they are ‘used’ by the efficient cause in the service Of the
final cause. :

The Pythagorean materialists, therefore, are open to the
following criticisms :—(i) Since they abstract the formal cause,
the hot and the cold can no longer be regarded as ‘instrumental ’.

They assign too high a rank to such material forces in speaking

of them as the ‘instruments’ of yéveous and POopa (cf. 36%6 dia
tovtwv .. . PO«ciperOar) ; for—apart from the formal (i.e. the
efficient and the final) cause—they are not épyavixai. (ii) They
forget that these material forces are passive as well as active.
Thus even Fire (the hot par excellence, cf. * 30 25-30) obviously
‘is moved’, i.e. suffers action. Hence these material : forces
cannot originate xivnois: for 7d zparov Kwodv is axivyrov, and 7d
mpotov rood Is dmabés (cf. 24%12-13). (iii) The part, which
these material forces in fact play in yéveovs, is that of ‘instruments ’
or ‘tools’ of the final (efficient and formal) cause. It is
therefore as absurd to regard them as the causes of yéveous as it
would be to view the saw and plane as the causes of the things
made by the carpenter. Finally (iv) even if we admit that
(e. g.) Fire—unlike the carpenter’s tools—does act or set things
moving of i¢sedf, the movement, which, it thus ‘ originates’, is not
instrumental to yéveows: on the contrary, it is destructive. Fire
therefore, if we consider it apart from the controlling cause, is
actually less conducive to yéveous, than are the tools to zotyots.

36* 2. Atay dpyavixds, i.e. they make the material: forces
too instrumental in character. They treat mere natural forces
as auxiliary to a purpose, though they have eliminated all
notion of a formal cause, and therefore also all notion of
a final cause.

Rag Pe oe bet ae, na ee ee

ete

wi ov Gi voor bos

‘eo
ats

nisin

Sis:

B. 9. 33621 — 10. 33610 253

36*12. d\dka...dpyava. This criticism is somewhat obscure
owing to its brevity: I have followed Philoponos in my interpreta-
tion (cf. * 36% 1-12).

36* 13-14. ftv... pops. Aristotle’s ‘general account of
the causes’ is given in the Physics (B. 3-9), and his special
account of the material and formal causes of yéveous and Oopa
is contained in the present chapter (35% 32 — 7).

36714->10. én... dow. Aristotle’s theory of the efficient
cause of yéveous and @Oopa presupposes his astronomical system,
which is based upon the system of Eudoxos as modified by
Kallippos. The reader should consult AZe/aph. 1073 18—1074*
17, and the excellent exposition in Heath, pp. 190 ff., from which
I make the following extracts. ‘Eudoxus adopted the view
which prevailed from the earliest times to the time of Kepler,
that circular motion was sufficient to account for the movements
of all the heavenly bodies. With Eudoxus this circular motion
took the form of the revolution of different spheres, each of
which moves about a diameter as axis. All the spheres were
concentric, the common centre being the centre of the earth;
hence the name of ‘‘homocentric spheres” used in later times
to describe the system. The spheres were of different sizes, one
inside the other. Each planet was fixed at a point in the equator
of the sphere which carried it, the sphere revolving at uniform
speed about the diameter joining the corresponding poles ; that
is, the planet revolved uniformly in a great circle of the sphere
perpendicular to the axis of rotation. But one such circular
motion was not enough ; in order to explain the changes in the
speed of the planets’ motion, their stations and retrogradations,
as well as their deviations in latitude, Eudoxus had to assume
a number of such circular motions working on each planet and
producing by their combination that single apparently irregular
motion which can be deduced from mere observation. He
accordingly held that the poles of the sphere which carries the
planet are not fixed, but themselves move on a greater sphere
concentric with the carrying sphere and moving about two
different poles with a speed of its own. As even this was not
sufficient to explain the phenomena, Eudoxus placed the poles of
the second sphere on a third, which again was concentric with
and larger than the first and second and moved about separate
poles of its own, and with a speed peculiar to itself. For the
planets yet a fourth sphere was required similarly related to the

254 COMMENTARY

three others ; for the sun and moon he found that, by--a suitable
choice of the positions of the poles and of speeds of rotation, he
could make three spheres suffice. . . . The spheres which move
each planet Eudoxus made quite separate from those which move
the others. One sphere sufficed of course to produce the daily
rotation of the heavens. Thus, with three spheres for the sun,
three for the moon, four for each of the planets, and one for the
daily rotation, there were 27 spheres in all... . It would appear
that he did not give his spheres any’substance or mechanical
connexion; the whole system was a purely geometrical hypothesis,
or a set of theoretical constructions calculated to represent the
apparent paths of the planets and enable them to be computed.’
Kallippos (cf. Arist. Mefaph. 1073 32-38) ‘thought it necessary
to add two more spheres . . . to the sun and moon respectively, if
one wishes to account for the phenomena, and one more to each
of the other planets’. Aristotle (cf. Wetaph. 1073 38—1074% 14)
‘transformed the purely abstract and geometrical theory into-
a mechanical system of spheres, i.e. spherical shells, in actual
contact with one another ; this made it almost necessary, instead
of assuming separate sets of spheres, one set for each planet, to
make all the sets part of one continuous system of spheres. For
this purpose yet other spheres had to be added which Aristotle
calls “unrolling” or ‘“ back-rolling” (daveAirrovoat), by which is
meant “reacting” in the sense of counteracting the motion of
certain of Eudoxus’s and Callippus’s spheres which, for the sake
of distinction, we may with Schiaparelli call “‘deferent”’. Hence
(Heath, p. 219), according to Aristotle, nine spheres (five
‘deferent’ and four ‘back-rolling’) combine their revolutions to
produce the apparent motion of the sun.

In the present passage Aristotle begins by recalling two theses
which he had established in the Physics (36° 15 SéSexrar, * 18-19
TO mpotepov KadGs eipyrar: the reference is to Phys. @. 7-9), viz.
that motion (a) is eternal and (b) is the primary form of change,
of which all other forms, including +yéveois, are derivatives.
Motion, therefore, causes coming-to-be (36% 25), and the e/ernily
of motion causes the continuily of coming-to-be (36% 15-18).
But we have still to determine Avecisely what motion is the
efficient cause of yéveors and pOopd. Since yéveois and Oop
(i) occur continuously or uninterruptedly in the Lower Cosmos
and (ii) are contrary to one another; the motion, which is their
efficient cause, must be (i) eternal and continuous, and (ii) in

B. 10. 336%14-18 255

some sense dua/ or internally diverse, since it has to cause a pair
of contrary effects (36% 23-31).

These two conditions, Aristotle maintains, are satisfied by ‘ the
motion along the inclined circle’ (36 32), i.e. by the sun’s annual
movement in the ecliptic or zodiac circle. For that movement is
continuous (cf. * 36> 2-3): and it brings 76 yevvytixéy, i.e. the sun,
alternately nearer to, and further away from, any given point on
the earth’s surface (cf. * 36> 3-6).

The alternation of yéveots and Oopa is ascribed to the sun’s
movement in the zodiac circle in Mefeor. 346» 16 ff. (cf. * 36> 6-7) :
and the doctrine is implied e.g. in Mefaph. 1071% 15-16, 10724
10-18, Phys. 194? 13.

36* 14-18. €m ... yewvntixdy. Aristotle is only. beginning the
statement of his doctrine, and his language is not quite precise:
The continutty of yéveois is due to the eternity of motion. But
the whole effect to be explained is. the continuous alternation of
yéeveois and @Oopd. Possibly Aristotle uses the plural (# 16 rovrwv
ovrwv) because he is thinking not only of the eternity of motion
(@ 15-16), but also of the ‘inclination of the circle’ which he
will specify (36> 3-10) as the cause of the sun’s alternate approach
and retreat.

There is a similar want of precision in 36° 16-18 See:
yevvytixév), which is not remedied by F’s omission of kai drdyew
(218). But we have no right to expect pedantic accuracy in the
first rough statement of a theory.

Aristotle’s doctrine of the efficient cause of yéveois and pOopa
has a certain ‘metaphysical ’ or ‘ theological’ background, which it
will be convenient to sketch briefly here. Eternal circular
motion, which the Physics (®. 7 and 8) had shown to be possible,
is actually exhibited zx the first instance by the revolution of the
TpOTOS ovpaves, i.e. the outermost of the concentric spheres, the
sphere in which are set the fixed stars. Its revolution is eternal
and uniform because it is the zp@rov kivovpevor, i.e. because it is
immediately moved by the zpérov xwodv which is didvov as well as
axivyroy, i.e. by God (cf. e.g. Péys. 258> r2—260%10). But the
motion, which the outermost sphere derives immediately from
God, is imparted to the whole system of concentric spheres, since
they are in contact one with another. Hence, through the
mediation of the sional xwovpevoy, the ‘revolution of the oe
heavens ’ (cf. 36> 3 % rod ddov dopa) is eternal too.

Now God is conceived by Aristotle as absolute ‘form’ or sheer

256 COMMENTARY

actuality, and as therefore also the ultimate final cause and the
ultimate (or primary) efficient cause. For (i) God, as sheer
actuality, is the fulfilment in which all effort must. recognize its
end—i. e. God is ‘the Best’, the supreme object of all desire.
And Aristotle represents all things in the Cosmos as inspired by
love of God, as striving, so far as in them lies, to attain to God ;
i.e. to imitate in their activities that perfect and eternal life, that
self-dependent and self-fulfilling spiritual activity, which is God.

But (ii) God, as sheer actuality, is the underived origin of all -

motion, i.e. the primary efficient cause. The eternal. life, which
is God, radiates through the whole system. It communicates
itself immediately (as we have seen) to the zp@rov kwvovpevoy in
the form of eternal uniform revolution. In the subordinate
spheres (in the lower regions of the heavens) the movements,
though still continuous and eternal, are no longer uniform, since
they are transmitted through more than one intermediary—i. e.
the movements of the planets are irregular, since they are the
resultants of many revolutions. And in ‘the region about the
centre ’—1. e. in the sublunary sphere—there is no revolution at
all. The divine life is manifested here, in this region furthest
removed from the zpérov xwodv, in the enfeebled and imperfect
processes of the perishable things, viz. in the movements and
transformations of the four ‘simple’ bodies, in the movements of
the animals and men, in yéveors and 6opd, in é\Aoiwors, and in
avénows and POiois. (Cf. Introd. §§ 3 and 4, * 36> 26-34, * 36>
30-32; Philoponos, p. 288, ll. 24-26; MWetaph. 1072% 19—107 3% 13,
Phys. 250» 11-15, de Caelo 279% 16-30, 288% 13-17, 292% 18— 25.)

36718. 16 yevyntixdv. All movement is the movement of a body.
The outermost sphere, e. g., is a spherical shell, i.e. a spherical
body, whose substance is the Aether (cf. Introd. § 10): and ‘it is
this ‘body’ which revolves uniformly and eternally. Similarly
the movement along the ecliptic, which is the efficient cause of
yeveoits and Oopa, is the movement of a body, viz. of the sun
(cf. 3601 dei pév te xweicOa, > 7 tairdv todro, 17 Tod HAéov).
- Aristotle calls the sun ‘the generator’: but, strictly speaking, it is

the alternately approaching and receding sun which causes,

alternately, yéveows and pOopd. The sun, gua near, yea : and the
sun, gua remote, POeipe (cf. * 36> 6-7, * 36> 8-10).
36" 19-20. 16... imetv. This clause is in apposition to, and

epexegetic of, 7d mpérepov (818). The thesis is established in

Phys. 260% 26—261 26. .

rr

B. 10. 336% 14-30 257

36 23-25. éwei... p0opd: cf. above, 17> 33 ff.

36% 26-31. pavepdv .. . tdvavtia. The grammatical construction
has become slightly deflected: but zm effect Aristotle is saying ‘It
is clear that, in order to account for the occurrence of both yéveous
and Oopa, not one motion only (# 26-29 muds . . . POopa), but more
motions than one are required (* 29-31 Set... révavria)’. At first
sight Aristotle’s words (de d& wXeious elvar Tas Kuyoes) suggest
that separate contrasted movements are required: but he makes it
clear immediately (36% 32 — > 2) that the two contrasted movements
are constituents of the single ‘motion along the inclined circle’.

36* 30. évavtias ... dvmpadia: ‘contrasted with one another
either by the sense of their motion or by its irregularity.’

(1) One movement is ‘ contrary’ to another, only if the terminal
points. of the former are spatially contrary to those of the latter.
If e. g. A is above and B below, or A right and B Zeft, or A front
and B dack, then a movement from A to B is contrary to a move-
ment from B to A. The two movements, from A to B and
from B to A, are then évavriou dopai or évaytion rH dopa. From
this it follows that there is no movement contrary to circular
motion. If a body is carried round in a circle, from whatever
point in the circumference its motion starts, it must equally,
in each revolution, reach all the contrasted positions in its circle:
and its movement round its circle, whatever its sense, is (if we
consider each complete revolution) ‘from the same to the same’,
and not from contrary to contrary terminus. (Cf. de Caelo 270»
32—-271* 33.) | |

From this conception of ‘contrariety of motion’ it follows that
if the movements, which cause yéveois and @@opa, are évavriat TH
_ pope they cannot be (either or both of them) complete revolutions.
And in fact (see preceding note) they are contrasted portions of
the sun’s completed circle along the ecliptic.

(ii) Every form of process—‘alteration’, growth and diminu-
tion, motion—may be uniform (éaA7s) or irregular (évdpados) :
and the term dvwpados is applied below to the matter of the
yevnta kat POaprd (in so far as its temperament and texture are
not everywhere the same) and also to certain yevéoas and POopai
(cf. * 36> 20-24). It appears, however, that the terms, when
applied to motion, express the contrast between a motion with
unchanging, and a motion with changing, velocity. The charac-
teristic of an izregudar motion is that its velocity increases
towards, and diminishes from, a maximum. Hence it contains

2254 S

258 COMMENTARY

a plurality of different, and possibly contrary, part-motions: and
is ‘one’ only by ‘continuity’, i.e. only because the end of one
of its part-motions is the beginning of another. In a uniform
motion, on the other hand, there is the same velocity throughout.
It is absolutely ‘one’; for all its constituent motions are similar,
i.e. any one of them could be substituted for any other. Hence
a body which moves uniformly and the path of its motion must
themselves be uniform—i.e. must be such that any part could
coincide with (could be substituted for) any other. From this
it follows that the path of a uniform motion must be eéther
a straight line ov a circle. But a straight line (since Aristotle
does not admit an Infinite) contains an dpyy and a rédos. Bodies,
therefore, which move along a straight line, cannot move uniformly.
For, if their motion is ‘ natural’, its velocity will increase as they
get further from the point of rest (the dpyy) towards the rédos
of their path: whilst if their motion is zapa dvau, its velocity
will diminish as they get further from the dpyy of their path, since
that means further from the force which impelled them to move
‘against their nature’. A circle alone contains in itself neither dpyy
nor réAos nor pécov: i.e. a circular path has no natural terminus.

Hence revolution—the revolution of a body which is itself
uniform, viz. of a sphere—is the only motion which is absolutely
‘uniform’. (Cf. e.g. de Caelo 288%13-27; Phys. 228% 15—
22996, 265 11-16.)

36° 34-—P1. dvdynn ...80pd. cuvexys is probably to be taken
as predicate: cf. 36> 25.

36>1. 1: cf. * 36 18.

36> 2. Buo, sc. kunoeas Kwetoba, cf. 36% 33. -

36> 2-3. tiis...airia. The ‘first motion’ (cf. 36431 4 apary
dopa) is that of the zparos oipavds, which revolves once in every
twenty-four hours from East to West. Since it carries round with
it the whole system of concentric spheres, Aristotle here speaks
of it as 7 Tod dAov (sc. odpavod) dopa: cf. * 36214 — 10, * 364 14—
18 ; Phys. 2678-9. It is absolutely single and uniform, for what
is revolving is a sphere (cf. * 36% 30): and its velocity is greater
than that of the proper revolution of any of the other celestial
spheres. Owing to its singleness, uniformity, and supreme velocity,
the astronomers use it as the unit or standard of all the celestial
motions: cf. de Caelo 287% 23-26, Metaph. 1053% 8-12.

Philoponos quotes this interpretation of # rod ddov dopa from
Alexander, but perversely rejects it.

alas a;

Sed eae iy fi

B. 10. 336% 30—P7 259

36> 3-6. tod 8... Kivnors. Aristotle, with a natural economy of
his full astronomical theory (cf. * 364 14-10), speaks as if two
spheres only were required to produce the sun’s movements, viz.
(i) the sphere of the fixed stars, and (ii) a sphere moving ‘about
an axis perpendicular to the plane of the zodiac’ (Heath, p. 198:
cf. also de Caelo 28528, where Aristotle refers to ‘the second
revolution, viz. that of the planets’). The sun is carried in its annual
movement by this second sphere along the ecliptic or zodiac circle:

' and the latter is inclined at an angle to the equator of the first sphere,

which is the equator of the universe and is in the same plane as the
terrestrial equator. Owing to this inclination, the sun, at different
points of its annual path, ‘ will cross the celestial equator, be north
of it, cross it again and be south of it’ (cf. N. Lockyer, Zlemen-
tary Lessons in Astronomy, § 363). Hence the sun in its annual
movement will alternately ‘approach’ and ‘ recede from’ any
given point on the earth’s surface (e.g. Athens). Aristotle adds
(36> 5-6) ‘since the sun’s distance’ (viz. from any given point on
the earth’s surface) ‘is thus unequal, its movement will be
irregular’. This ought to mean (cf. * 36% 30) that the sun’s
annual movement will alternately accelerate towards, and diminish
from, a maximum velocity; and perhaps Aristotle is referring
to the apparent arrest of the sun’s motion at the solstices. For

_the sun appears to stand still at its extreme north and south

declinations, i.e. at those points on the Aogds xvxAos which are
furthest removed from the equator of the outermost sphere.
After each solstice the direction of the sun’s movement is changed
and it moves ‘back’ towards the points of intersection of the
ecliptic and equator, which it reaches at the vernal and autumnal
equinoxes. If the sun’s movement is dévépados in the strict sense
of that term, we must suppose that it accelerates from jpenia

at each solstice till it reaches its dxuy at the next equinox; and

diminishes in velocity from each equinox till it reaches jpepia
at the next solstice..

36> 6-7. dot ... p¥eiper. Thesun’s annual movement includes,
as we have seen, part-motions which are contrary to one another
in ‘sense’ and perhaps also contrasted in velocity. The whole
movement, therefore, is the efficient cause of the alternation
of yéveors and Oopa, one part-motion causing yéveors and the
other #Oopa. Aristotle maintains that certain ‘facts of observa-
tion’ (36> 15-19) confirm his view that yéveous is the effect of the
sun’s approach and pOopa. of: its retreat, What are these ‘facts’?

S 2

*

260 COMMENTARY

Aristotle is thinking (i) of the growth of vegetation, &c,, in spring
and summer, and its decay in autumn and winter: (ii) of the birth
and death of those insects (e. g.) which do not survive the winter :
(iii) of the development and decay of the other animals and plants
(cf. * 36> 8-10): and (iv) probably also of the annual cycle of the
seasons, i. e. the annual alternation of drought and heat with cold
and rain. For the increased heat, produced by the sun’s annual
‘approach’, vaporizes and draws up the Water on and near the
earth, so that it is converted into Air: whilst, when the sun
‘retreats’, the original heat in the vaporized Water is partly
‘quenched’ by the cold of its environment, and partly ‘dissipated’
by rising into still higher regions, so that the Air condenses into
cloud, and descends again to earth in the form of Water. This
seasonal cycle—Water streaming up as drpis and becoming Air,
Air condensed into cloud and streaming down as rain—is the
result, Aristotle thinks, of an ‘imitation’ of the sun’s circular
movement in the ecliptic. (Cf. AZeteor. 346> 16—347* 12, and
Alexander’s commentary ad Joc. Cf. also above, * 22» 2-3, * 30> 4,
* 318 24.) .

The reader will have observed an obvious difficulty, which
is noticed by Alexander and Philoponos. For (cf. * 188 23-25)
the yéveous of one thing is eo ipso the dOopa of something else and
vice versa. How, then, can the sun’s approach be the cause
of yéveors only and its retreat be the cause of pOopa only? If the
plant or the animal comes-to-be, the seed passes-away : and when
the former pass-away, there is a yéveows of certain simple (or re-
latively-simple) constituents. So, in the seasonal cycle, the yeveous
of Air is the #@opa of Water, the @@opa of Air the yéveous of Water.

The solution of this difficulty depends, we must suppose, upon
a difference of rank, or degree of reality, in the yevyra (cf. * 18> 14-
18 ; Philoponos, p. 289, ll. 27 ff.; Alexander, dzopia cat Avoets,
lii. 4). The plant and the animal are ‘more real’ than the
seed: Air is ‘more real’ than Water, for it is nearer to
the dpx7, 1.e. the mp@rov xwodv. Hence the ‘approach’ of the
sun brings into being the ‘more real’ yevnra:. and the Oopd
of the ‘less real’ things, which this yéveows involves, is only
a subordinate concomitant effect of the sun’saction. Similarly the
‘retreat ’ of the sun destroys the ‘ more real’ things, and this ¢@opd
is only incidentally accompanied by the yéveous of things ‘less real’.

36> 8-10. kai ci . . . pdow. Aristotle endeavours to bring
within the scope of his theory the ripening to maturity and the

B. 10. 3366-15 261

decay to extinction of the longer-lived organisms. He supposes
that the sun ‘ generates’ such organisms—i. e. brings them to their
axpy or full development—-by a succession of its ‘approaches’,
and causes their ¢@opa by a succession of its ‘retreats’. And he
enunciates it as a general law that the period of their natural
development to their dxuy is equal in length to the period of their
natural decay towards their dOopd. It is obvious, as Philoponos
observes, that the phenomena here in question are av€yo.s and
bios rather than yéeveois and dopa in the proper sense: and the
substitution of @6ic1s for plopd (36> 18) is perhaps significant as
an indication of what was in Aristotle’s mind.

Aristotle does not explain why, if a succession of the sun’s
‘approaches’ (e.g. twenty successive summers) causes the full
development of an oak or a man, the successive ‘ retreats’ during
the same period (i. e. the corresponding winters) do not counteract
this effect: nor conversely, why the successive summers, during
the period of the organism’s decline, do not neutralize the de-
structive power of the winters. We must suppose that he would
have met this difficulty by his theory of the cvpdurov Oeppor,
though there is no evidence to show the precise form which his
answer would have taken. The development of a living thing, as
we know from other works, is due to the co-operation of (a) the
heat in the environment (i.e. in the Air or Water in which the
thing lives), which is derived principally from the sun, and (b)
the ‘connate vital heat’, which is contained in the heart of
sanguineous animals and in the analogous organ of bloodless
animals. This ‘vital heat’ (cvuduros Oepydrys pvorky, Oepyorys
Yoyicn, Cwrixy Oeppdrns, pvoixdv Oeppov, xrd.) plays a very important
part in Aristotle’s physiological and biological theories: cf. e. g,
* 29> 24-26; de Gen. Anim. 736» 33 ff., 762% 18-21, 784° 34 ff. ;

Parva Naturalia 469° 6 ff., 473% 9-12 ; Meteor. 379° 3 fff.

36> 10-15. 85... pérpov. The Order controlling all things in

the Cosmos assigns a determinate period of life to each species of
living thing. Within this period, so many years, e. g., are required

for the process of development to maturity and an equal number
of years for the decline to extinction. The individual members
of the species conform, as a general rule, to their specific period.

And the period of each species is distinctive, i.e. the various
‘species are distinguished from one another (12 diopiLovrat) by
the various numbers which express the differing lengths of their
‘periods. ‘There are constant references in Aristotle’s works to

262 COMMENTARY

the Order controlling the system of things: cf. Bonitz, Znd. 747*
30 ff. It is referred to below, 37° 15 (reraypevy).

In 36 15 the grammatical subject is 7 qepiodos, with which 76
pérpoy 1s in apposition. |

36> 20-24. adda... p¥opdv. The vital period of the species,
assigned by the Order, demands equal duration for the process
of development and for the process of decline: but to this, as to
every general rule, there are exceptions. It often happens that
individuals of a given species die prematurely :—i.e. that their
decline occupies a shorter time than their development, or
a shorter time than the Order prescribes (> 20 év éAdrrom Oei-
peoOai: either interpretation is possible, and both come to the
same thing). This, like all exceptions to the general rules in
nature, is due to the matter. For the matter, of which the
living things are composed, is ‘irregular’, i.e. not the same in
texture throughout (cf. * 36%30). Hence the yevéoes of some
individuals in a species will be ‘irregular’, i.e. will exhibit
a velocity varying from the normal or specific rate; so that some
of them will develop too quickly and others too slowly. Now,
since the yeveovs of one thing is eo zfso the POopa of another, each
abnormally rapid yeveots will eo 7so involve an abnormally rapid
dopa. Premature death, therefore, or abnormally rapid decline
in some individuals is only the inevitable obverse of premature or
abnormally rapid development on the part of o¢her living things,
whether of the same or of a different species. 7

This interpretation, by which alone a tolerable meaning
can be extracted from the passage, involves the placing of
a comma after ovpPaive and the insertion of ro after dia in » 24.
ovpBaiver, SC. toAdakis ev eAatrove POeiperOar (cf. > 20). In the
same line rovrwy refers to the things whose yéveous is avwpados,
1. e. 1” this case ‘too rapid’.

36> 20-21. +81d. . . cdyxpaowt. All the manuscripts read ovy-
kpacw. Philoponos quotes ovyxpovow as a variant. Neither word,
so far as I can discover, occurs elsewhere in Aristotle, though both
are to be found once in the spurious de Plantis.

It is difficult to extract a satisfactory meaning from these words
whether we read ovyxpacw or ovyxpovow. Pacius, who reads
avykpacwv, interprets ‘ob mutuam invicem conspirationem’. By
this he appears to mean ‘because of .the way in which the
yevnta xai Oapra are implicated with one another’, i.e. (cf.
> 21--24) because every yéveous is intertwined with a ¢Oopa and

B. 10. 336 20-34 263

vice versa. But (a) ovyxpacis is a very inappropriate word, and
(b) the phrase would then only anticipate obscurely what the
following lines state clearly.

Philoponos wishes to interpret riv mpds aAAnAa ovyKpacw as
‘the reciprocal attemperament of the crovyeta’. This would give
an excellent sense, since the matter of living things is a blend or
attemperament of the four elementary qualities. But there is
nothing in the context to justify us in supposing that the things
which are ‘reciprocally attempered’ are the orovyeta.

If we read ovyxpovow, we might suppose Aristotle to mean
that premature death is due to ‘collision’—i.e. to life being
crushed out Bia, instead of vanishing by the process of natural
decline. But this interpretation is impossible, since it would
leave the next sentence (dvwydAov yap . . . POopav) disconnected
and pointless. Philoponos himself suggests two very uncon-
vincing interpretations of ovyxpovow, viz. (i) ‘the reciprocal
consilience of the causes, i.e. the material cause and the
proximate and primary efficient causes’; but—not to mention
other objections—there is nothing in the context to suggest that
the ovyxpovors is a ovyKpovots Tov aitiwy: and (ii) ‘ the cvvdpoun tov
oxnpatwv of the sun, the other planets, and the stars’ (i. e. their
‘conjunction’ in an astrological sense), to which he ascribes
a certain. influence in determining the span of life. Here again
it is a sufficient objection that nothing in the context justifies
us in identifying aAAyAa with ra ovpdva or with their cyjpara.

On the whole I have thought it best to obelize the words as
probably spurious. |

36> 25-26. dei... airiav. Aristotle has explained (i) how the
material cause renders it possible for yéveous and POopa to occur
continuously, without ever failing in nature (> 26 jy «trope airiay,
sc. the material cause, cf. 18% 9-10, * 18% 23-25), and (ii) how the
sun’s annual movement in the ecliptic acts as the efficient cause
of the continuous alternation of these processes.

36> 26-34. toto . . . yéveow. Aristotle briefly indicates the
final cause of the continuity of yeveous, i.e. shows how it con-
tributes to fulfil the perfection of the universe. The continuity of
yéveois is a logical consequence of the fundamental teleological
principle for the explanation of natural phenomena, viz. that
‘Nature in all things always strives after the better ’.

Since ‘ being’ is better than ‘ not-being ’, every thing, if nature’s
purpose could be fully attained, would always ‘be’, i.e. would be

264 : COMMENTARY

individually eternal. But the eternity of the individual is im-

possible in the Lower Cosmos: for the things in that sphere are

too remote from the dpyz (i.e. from God) to share in the ‘eternal
life’, except in a very feeble degree and in a very imperfect form
(cf. * 36% 14-18). They are ovvOera, and their matter (unlike that
of the stars and’ planets) is 76 dvvarév-elvai-xai-yy-elvar (cf. * 35%
32-5). It is in constant process of transformation: hence
individually they cannot ‘be’ except for a limited time, and in
a sense which presupposes ‘not-being’ and necessarily involves
a future @Oopa or cessation of ‘being’. But nature secures
‘eternity’ for them in another sense. For although each individual
comes-to-be and passes-away, each species always ‘is’ owing to the
continuity of yéveous—i.e. each species is always actual, embodied
in an unbroken succession of individual representatives. Hence
every individual thing in the Lower Cosmos shares in eternity in
virtue of its ‘form’. For its ‘form’ is the species, the specific
character of all the individual embodiments ; and this neither
comes-to-be nor passes-away, but exists for ever—i.e. there is no
gap between, and no end to, its ‘ recurrences’ in its representatives.

Thus the continuity of yéveo.s contributes to the perfection of
the universe. For by it, and by it alone, the sublunary sphere is
linked up with the celestial spheres, since even the yevyra xai
fOaprd, in virtue of this continuity, contribute to, and share in,
the divine life which is ‘the best’ or the zédos of the whole
system.

Aristotle touches below (cf. * 38> 6-1 9) on the distinction
between the zzdividual eternity of e. & the stars and planets and
the specific eternity of the yevyra kai POapra, and Sia ts it by
the difference in their matter.

‘The reader may be reminded in this connexion that Aristotle:
as well as Plato, regarded the impulse of the individual living
thing to ‘ propagate its kind’ as the expression of its striving after
eternity. The perishable things attain to immortality and eternal
life, so far as in them lies, in the perpetuation of their species
(cf. e.g. Plato, Symp. 207d ff. ; Arist. de Anima 415% 25 —»7).

36> 29. 13... eipnrat. The different meanings of eva: and 7d
év are constantly set forth in Aristotle’s works, and specially in
the Metaph. (cf. e.g. 1017° 7 ff., 1026° 33 ff., 1028* roff., ro45>
32 ff., 1051* 34 ff.: and above, Introd. § 3). It is ‘being’ i
the primary and superlative sense—the substance which is pure
‘form’ or sheer actuality—that Aristotle here seems to have in

Yi he

B. 10. 336° 26—3378 1 265

mind. But the principle that ‘being is better than not-being’
no doubt involves also the superiority of 76 dv ws dAnOés to 7d pi)
dv &s Weddos, and again of the adjectival ‘ reals’ to ra. pH) dvra, and
even of the ‘ potentially-real’ to that which is dwAds pip dv.

36° 30-32. todro... yéveow. ‘All things in the universe are
animated by desire or love for ‘the best’, i.e. for God ; and God
is eternal life (cf. * 36% 14-18). But the divine life is reflected
in the actions and activities of the derivative things with decreas-
ing intensity and diminishing adequacy in proportion to their
increasing distance from God. Thus even the heavenly bodies,
though they are free from yéveows and plopa and though they are
individually eternal, only approximate in their activities to the
divine actuality. Their life zs not ‘the good’. They live in
‘actions’ or ‘series of actions’ (xpdées) by which they approximate
to ‘the good’ more or less closely, and by less or more indirect
paths (cf. de Caelo 292%18-—»25). The things of the Lower
Cosmos, as we have. seen. (* 36> 26-34), are incapable of
individual eternity. They cannot ‘be’, but only ‘come-to-be’.
Yet, by the continuity of their coming-to-be, they share in the
eternity of their species.

In view of Chapter 11, it is important to notice that the
uninterrupted linear succession of individuals, which embodies the
eternity of a species, is in fact an unbroken terietition of cycles.
As Philoponos expresses it, the perishable things attain to specific
eternity only ‘by imitating the circular movement of the heavenly
bodies’. Thus, in order that the human species may be eternally
actual, the cycle ‘ man—seed-embryo-child-youth—man’ must be
endlessly repeated.

36> 32-34. obrw ... yéveow. cuveipew was used intransitively
above, 1698, 18@ 13. Here it is passive. We must understand
70 elvac (> 33) in its widest sense, so as to include the ‘being’
of all forms and kinds of dvra. In » 34 rh yéveow is, I think, the
subject of the verb yiverOa, the words 76 y. d. x. 7. yéveow forming
a single phrase—‘ that coming-to-be should itself (xa) come-to-be
perpetually ’.

36° 34. rovrou, sc. Tod yiver Oar dei Kal THY yéveow.

37° 1. 4... ovvexys. The same thing (cf. Phys. 261° 31 ff.)
cannot come-to-be and pass-away, increase and diminish in
magnitude, alter from hot to cold and vice versa, or move from
A to B and back again, without a break in its change at the point
where reversal takes place. In that sense, no peraBoAy except

266 COMMENTARY

circular motion is ‘continuous’ (for the meaning of cvvexys,
cf. * 16> 4). :

The ‘continuity’ of yéveo.s and $6opa in nature, upon which
Aristotle insists, is not the continuity of a single peraBodAy, i.e.
not continuity in the change of a single thing. What he maintains
is that (a) there always are things coming-to-be in nature and
eo ipso there always are things passing-away : (b) everything which
comes-to-be is thereby committed to a ‘vital cycle’ which it is
bound to complete by passing-away: (c) the endless linear suc-
cession of the individuals of a species is the endless repetition of
a cycle (cf. * 36 30-32): and (d) the course of nature as a whole
is a cycle, in which the dominance of yéveovs as the sun approaches
alternates with the dominance of @6opa as it retreats.

37° 1-7. 86...éorw. The reciprocal transformations of Earth,
Air, Fire, and Water are due to the conversion of one, or both,
of their constitutive elementary qualities into the; contrary quality
or qualities (cf. B. 4). Of these elementary qualities, the dry and
the moist are par excellence passive (xd6y) and the hot and the
cold are par excellence active (Svvdpes): cf. * 29> 24-26. Hence
‘the things which are reciprocally transformed in virtue of their
passions and their powers of action’ are ix the first instance the
‘simple bodies’, which Aristotle here adduces in illustration ;
though the description is no doubt intended to cover the ovv@era
also, in so far as their yevéoes and @Oopai are ultimately due to
the transformations of the dAd odpara of which they all consist
(cf. * 28P 32-33 ; 34> 31 ff.).

Now there are in nature reciprocal ‘funsfoinmationt of the
‘simple bodies’ which go on endlessly and continuously. One
instance is the transformation of Water into Air and Air into
Water, to which we owe the succession of the seasons (cf. * 36>
6-7). But Aristotle’s words here (374-6 and ® 7-15) suggest
that he is thinking of a still more comprehensive cycle of trans-
formations, in which Fire is included as well as Water and Air.
(Perhaps, indeed, the reciprocal transformation of Water and Air
is to be regarded as simply a part of the more comprehensive
cycle.) And in fact there is, as we saw (* 22> 2-3), a never-
ending cycle of transformations of the Water, Air, and Fire, which
envelop the Earth. Water is always ascending and becoming
Air, Air always ascending and becoming Fire: and conversely,
Fire is always descending and becoming Air, and Air descending
and becoming Water.

oy rapa ‘

B. 10. 337% I-9 267

In all such transformations there is motion in a straight line,
upwards and downwards: but since the motion is reversed—
the terminus of the ascent becoming the épy7 of a complementary
descent and vice versa—it ‘returns upon itself’, and thus
‘imitates circular motion’ and is continuous. The upward and
downward motions together form a cycle of transformations
which inevitably repeats itself endlessly.

37° 5. wadw... d8wp. Aristotle abbreviates his description of
the downward transformation, omitting the intermediate stage,
viz. Air.

37° 7. 4... éotw. The principle is of universal application,
though it is here inferred from the ev@cta dopa upwards and down-
wards of Water, Air, and Fire. Hence L’s reading (ciOeia rovrwv
dopa) must be rejected as a blundering correction.

37° 7-15. dpa... tetaypéevy. The sun’s annual movement, by
which it alternately approaches. and retreats, causes the alternate
ascent and descent of Water, Air, and Fire. They are thus
brought into contact, Water with Air, Air with Fire, Fire with
Air, and Air with Water: and the effect of this contact is the
action—passion, and the reaction and re-passion, of the contrary
constitutive elementary qualities, from which the transformations
of these ‘simple bodies’ result (cf. e.g. * 2312-22, * 34>
20-30). | :

Apart from this continuous reciprocal transformation of the
‘simple bodies’, which is thus due to the ‘dual motion’, the
Lower Cosmos would long ago have suffered disruption. For
each of the ‘simple bodies’ would long ago, in the infinite lapse
of time, have reached its ‘proper place ’—the place allotted to it
by the Order (®15 reraypévy, cf. * 36% 10-15)—and have
remained there quiescent and isolated. Hence, if it were not
for the sun’s ‘dual motion’, all interaction between the ‘simple
bodies’, all chemical process, all formation and dissolution of
compounds—in short, all energy and life whatever—would have
vanished from nature.

37° 8. twes. It is not known who these people were.

37° 9. év .. . xpdvw. The physical universe ‘contains and
comprehends within itself infinite time’ (de Cae/o 283» 29: and
cf. below, * 37% 22-25). Hence whatever is true of the ‘simple
bodies’ as they exist in the Lower Cosmos ow, must be
compatible with their having existed through an infinite ante-
cedent time.

268 COMMENTARY

37°10. of . . . odpata. The problem is to explain why the
simple bodies have not long ago got entirely separated from one
another. Hence, though such an isolation of the simple bodies
would entail also the disruption of the compound bodies, we must
reject J’s ra otvOera cwpara as a correction due to feseanoer:
standing.

37° 15-17. Sidtt ... eipnpévwv. This little epilogue marks the
completion of the treatise on the causes: cf. * 35% 24—37 33.

dudt1, 1.q. dru: cf. * 33> 22-26.

37° 17-33. éwet. . . xpdvov; a note to confirm Aristotle’s theory
that the revolution of the outermost sphere is the efficient cause
of the contimutly of the sun’s annual movement, and therefore
(mediately) of the continutty of the alternation of yéveous and
pOopa.

The note takes the form of (i) a gigantic Arofasis (37% 17-31),
breathless indeed and rather loose in syntax, but concentra-
ting into a number of distinct praemissa the results of
Aristotle’s discussions in Pys. @, so far as they are relevant to
his present purpose: and (ii) an apodosis (37% 32-33) which
(a) reaffirms in a more precise form the thesis asserted at
36> 2-3 (rhs pev odv ovvexeias 7) TOD dAov Hopa aitia), leaving us to
infer that the revolution of the ‘body’ which constitutes the
outermost sphere is medtately the cause of the continuity of
the alternation of yéveous and $Oopd, and (b) answers a question,
which was suggested by one of the praemissa (37° 22-25), but is
not otherwise connected with the present inquiry.

The Zraemissa may be summarized thus :—

(i) If there is to be continuous eternal movement, there must
be a single, unmoved, ungenerated, and unalterable initiating
cause (#17-22): (ii) there must be continuous circular move-

ment because of the continuity of time (®22-25): (iii) the’

continuity of the movement depends upon the continuity of the
body which is moved (and not fvimarily upon the continuity of
the ‘ path’ of its movement) ; but the continuous moving body
must move in a circle if it is always to remain continuous with
itself throughout its movement (# 25-31).
37° 17-22. éwel . . . dpxyv. Cf. Phys. @. 255> gr---a608 10%

Metaph. 1072* 19—1074> 14. The reference here and below (ef.
“18 mpdrepov, *25 ev trois év dpyH Adyous) is to the Physics, the
first in the series of Aristotle’s works on natural philosophy : cf.
Introd. § 10.

wise-t

TANSEY 5

alate

NE AN Nien a Rae BAER hy Wien in

SRNR Meine

B. 10. 337% 10-31 269

_ 372 22-25. cuvexots .. . Siwpicb. On Aristotle’s conception
of time, cf. Phys. 217 2g—224°17, 251 10 ff.; Melaph. 1071»
6-11.

Time and change reciprocally imply one another. There can
be no chahge which is not in time, no time without change,
and no perception of time without the perception of change.

‘ Continuity’ and ‘succession’ are primarily spatial and charac-
terize magnitudes (cf. * 16> 4). But the change of a continuous
magnitude, so far as the latter preserves its continuity, is itself
‘continuous’: and exhibits ‘succession’ (‘ before’ and ‘ after’)
in a sense analogous to the ‘succession’ (order of position) in
the parts of the magnitude. From this continuity and succession
in change, the continuity of time and its order of ‘ before’ and
‘after’ are derived.

We recognize time when we perceive ‘ before’ and ‘after’ in
a change: 1.e. when we perceive a change wow, and again now,
and recognize that the ‘nows’ are two and separated from one
another by an interval different from both. Time, in fact, is that
which is limited by the ‘now.’: and that which is limited is
change gua numerable or measurable. Hence time may be
defined as dpiOuds Kwycews Kata TO mpdTepov Kai voTepov : but by
dp.Oues in this definition we must understand 76 dpiOyovpevor or
TO dpiOunrov, and not @ apOpodpev (cf. Phys. 219» 1-8).

Time is one, continuous, uniform in its flow, and without
beginning or end. Ultimately, therefore, the change of which it
is a mafos—i.e. of which it is the dpiOuds or the pérpov in the
sense explained—must itself be one, continuous, uniform, and
without beginning or end. But the only kind of change, which
can satisfy these conditions, is circular motion: and the only
change, which zm faci satisfies them, is the revolution of the
outermost sphere (cf. * 36% 30). ‘Time therefore implies, and is
implied by, the eternal uniform revolution of the zpé@ros ovpavds.
It is /haé in it which is ‘numerable’ or ‘counted’. It ‘measures’
it, and is ‘ measured ’ by it. |

37° 23. xwpls. FH] read dvev, which E recognizes as a variant.
But it is difficult to see why dvev should have been corrected into
xwpis, whereas ywpis may have been altered into avev owing to the
scribe’s reminiscence of Phys. 218> 33 and 219% Tr. -

37° 25-31. cuvexis . . . del ouvexés. Continuity is predicable
primarily of magnitude (cf. * 37%22-25): and péyefos, in its
fullest and most proper sense, is three-dimensional, i. e. c@pa (cf.

270 COMMENTARY

e. g. de Caelo 268% 20-24). Hence the continuity of a movement
is determined Arvimarily by the continuity of the moving body.
But ‘amongst continuous bodies which are moved, only
that which is moved in a circle is “ continuous” in such a way
that it preserves its continuity with itself throughout the move-
ment’ (® 30-31 rovrov... det ovvexés). Hence ‘that in which
the movement occurs ’—i.e. the path of the movement—con-
tributes, by its continuity, to the continuity of the movement.

37° 26-27. wérepov .. . md00s; Aristotle is here concerned only
with dopa. But the general doctrine, which he is applying, was
based in the Physics on discussions covering all forms of peraBorn.
Hence he illustrates the ‘sphere’ (7d év ©) of xivnous by wados
(which is the ‘ sphere’ of dAXAotwars : cf. e.g. Phys. 262° 2-5) as well
as by rozos.

In * 26 76 é€v © = To 76 &v @, by an ellipse not uncommon in
Aristotle. Cf. Bywater, Contributions to the textual criticism of the
Nic. Ethics, note on 11321. Similarly in # 29 76 ev 6 = th 70 &v
© (sc. cuvexés elvac).

37° 28-30. mwas... €xet. The result of this parenthesis—viz.
that the continuity of the ‘sphere’ of dopa (though not of any
other kind of xiévyovs) contributes, as a secondary condition, to the
continuity of the movement—is utilized in the continuation of
the main sentence. For it is only a circular ‘path’ which is
continuous: hence continuous movement implies a continuous
body moving in a circle.

37° 30-31. ToUrou .. . det ouvexés. ovrov (sc. Tod Kwovpévov
7} Tvvexods) is a partitive genitive. For a similar instance of the
partitive genitive in the singular, cf. Z¢#. Mic. 1127%7 and
Bywater, l.c., note on 11498 16.

TO KUKAw, SC. Kivodpevov: Cf. e.g. de Caelo 270% 33 (7d Kikrw
copa), 289%30 (rod KvKALKodD cwparos). Philoponos wrongly
supposes the phrase to mean 76 xuxAorepés cGua. When Aristotle
refers to the shafe of the revolving body (i. e. of the otpavds), he
speaks of it as odaupoedés: cf. e. g. de Caelo 286% r1o—287? 21.

37° 33- 1. . - xpdvov, SC. ovvex7 movel.

B. 11

37° 34—38>19. "Ewei . . . elvar. With the treatise on the
causes Aristotle has completed the task which he originally
proposed to himself (cf. * 35% 24—37% 33). The present chapter,
therefore, is to be regarded as an appendix. The bulk of the

. oe
Sb anal te. Stee Maree

rey ee er se

B. 10. 337% 26 — 11. 33713 271

chapter (37% 34—38» 6) explains in what sense, and under what
conditions, the things which come-to-be are ‘necessary’. Aristotle
establishes that any continuous coming-to-be, which ts cyclical,
exhibits ‘absolute’ as well as ‘hypothetical’ necessity. The
remainder of the chapter (38> 6-19) briefly explains why yéveous
in some instances is cyclical, whilst in other instances it proceeds
(or appears to proceed) in a straight line onwards without reversion.

There is a good exposition of 37%14—3819 in Alexander,
dzropiat Kal Avoess, ill. 5.

37° 34—>3. “Emel . .. yevéoOar: formulation of the main pro-
blem of the chapter. Wherever there is continuous change of any
kind, there must be consecutiveness. For a continuum (16 ovvexés)
is that kind of consecutive series (rd épeéjs), whose terms are
(a) immediately next to one another (éxéueva) and moreover
(b) so closely connected that their limits are not merely gua, but

- coalesce into one: cf. * 164. Hence the continuity of yéveows

implies a succession of yyvoyeva such that yyvopevov follows
‘ consecutively ’, and without any interval, upon yyvopevov. The
problem then arises :—Is the coming-to-be of every member of
this succession contingent, so that every one of them might fail to
come-to-be? Or is the coming-to-be of any of them wzecessary
in the sense that some member (or members) zw2// de of necessity ?

37° 3-9. 8m... éorar. The question is whether any of the
yryvopeva. will be of necessity. For that the coming-to-be of some
of them at any rate is ‘ contingent’, is evident (a) from the different
meaning assigned by common usage to the terms péAAa and
éorat (> 3-7: cf. also Parva Naturalia 463» 28-31) and (b) from
the fact that the dezmg of some things is contingent, which implies
a corresponding contingency in their coming-to-be (» 7-9).

The argument in > 3-7 is an appeal to linguistic usage; and
therefore I prefer to alter péAAov into pédAAe with ®¢, instead of
adopting Bywater’s neat emendation (rd 3 éorar) of the reading in
the manuscripts (76 écraz).

37° 7-9. Sdws . . . ota. Aristotle is appealing to a general
distinction (éAws) within 7a évra, which is a fundamental principle
of his philosophy. The omission of ra (® 9) makes the argument
slightly more cogent. otrws fe, sc. évdéyerau Kai pn yevérOar.
TOUT , SC. TO yiver Oar. |

37> 12-13. ofov . . . évdéxeo0ar; The problem is:—Are a//
yryvopeva contingent (i. e. af most conditionally or hypothetically
necessary), or are some—e. g. the occurrence of the solstices—

272 COMMENTARY

unconditionally or absolutely necessary? If the solstices are
absolutely necessary occurrences, they correspond to the necessary
évra which are ddvvara pi elvar (P 11-12): they will therefore be
advvara pi yevérOa, i.e. it will be impossible for them to be pi
Suvara yevérOar or py évdexopeva yeveoOar. They cannot ‘ fail to
be able to occur’: for, if so, their occurrence might not even be
actual, and a fortiori it would not be necessary.

‘This interpretation of > 13 (odx oldv Te pH evdéxerOau, SC. Tporas
yevéoOar) is consistent with the doctrine of de Juterpr., chapters
12 and 13. - It is false, we must remember (I. c. 22 29-33), to say
of ‘the necessary’ that it is a Suvarév eivou, as well as to say of it
that it is duvarov pip eivan. |

Bonitz, perhaps rightly, places a mark of interrogation after
yéveow (12), and reads dpa for dpa in > 13. |

37> 14-25. «i 8h . . . Uotepov. Aristotle lays down the general
principles of the xexus between antecedent and consequent in
a temporal sequence : cf. Post. Anal. 95% 24—96* 7.

If, in a temporal sequence, A is the cause of an effect B, B’s
occurrence implies the prior occurrence of A. Hence from the
being of B we can infer that A must have occurred: and unless
A occurs, B will not occur. But we cannot, from the occurrence
of A, infer that B will occur. The nexus, therefore, so far is not
reciprocal. B is not necessary at all, and A is only é d7o8écews —
dvayxaiov—i.e. necessary, if B is to occur, or presupposed in the
being of B.

Suppose, however, that B’s occurrence is ‘ecemabicaats or
absolutely necessary, whilst, whenever B occurs, its being will
presuppose the occurrence of A. Under these conditions, the
nexus is in a sense reciprocal. For (as before) B’s occurrence
implies the prior occurrence of A. And, if A occurs, B will
occur—because B in any case must occur and, when it occurs,
its occurrence will follow upon the prior occurrence of A. Here, .
therefore, the absolute necessity of B extends itself, as it were,
over A, since A’s occurrence is presupposed in that of B.

The validity of the latter. part of this argument clearly
depends upon the meaning which Aristotle gives to ‘absolute
necessity of occurrence’; and that is explained below, 37% 29—
38°5. The effect of that explanation is to restrict ‘absolute
necessity of occurrence’, and the reciprocal necessary mexus, to
the members of eternally-repeated cycles of yryvéueva. Moreover,
even in such cycles (cf. * 38> 6-19), ‘ absolute necessity of occur-

B. Il. 337 12—3384 3 273

rence’ attaches to the members of the cycle only gua embodying
an identical type or species, not to them gua individuals severally
excluding one another.

37> 25—38*17. ei . . . kixXo, No member of a rectilinear
succession of yyvdueva, whether infinite (> 25-29) or finite
(> 29-33), can exhibit ‘absolute necessity of occurrence’. If
a thing is to come-to-be with ‘absolute necessity’, it must come-
to-be always and invariably: and that is possible only if it is
a member of an eternally-repeated cycle of yryvépueva (37> 33—
38° 5). Hence ‘absolute necessity of occurrence’ and ‘ reciprocal
necessary exus’ (which depends upon it) are to be found only in
cyclical xévyous and cyclical yéveors (38% 5-17).

37> 25-29. ei... yevéoOar. The reading of E'J in > 26, which
I have adopted (except that I have substituted rodi for rdde),
is given asa variant by Alexander (dzopiau al Avoets, ii. 22, pp. 71,
72) whose interpretation I have followed.

In a causal succession of events, proceeding from the present
onwards in a straight line ad infinitum (> 25 «is daepov... éxi rd
xatw), there can be no member whose occurrence is absolutely
necessary. For take any one of the events subsequent to the
present, e.g. P (526 ray Borrepov root). P’s future occurrence
is necessarily presupposed by (i.e. is contingent upon) the future
occurrence of the still later next event, R ; ¢#az¢ is contingent upon
the future occurrence of the still later sent event, S; and so on
ad infinitum (» 27-28 dei. . . yevéoOor). Hence the occurrence
of P, and of every subsequent member of the infinite succession,
is contingent (é& tbrobécews dvayxaiov) and not absolutely necessary
(aAGs avayKaiov).

If P’s occurrence were absolutely necessary, P would be an
originative source (an dpxy) of the whole succession and would
invest all the preceding events with absolute necessity (cf. * 37> 14—
25g But the succession is ex hypothest drepov, and there can
be no dpx7 in what is dzeipov.

The dpxy, which Aristotle denies to this succession proceeding
ad infinitum in the future (cf. > 28-29), is in fact, as Alexander
rightly insists, a TéAos.

It would be the genuine ‘first’ or ‘primary determinant’ of |
the temporally-preceding events, as the ‘end’ in which they
culminate, or the final cause to which they are the necessary
means.

37> 29—38 3. GAA... dvdyxns. Even ina finite rectilinear

2254 ai

274 - COMMENTARY

causal succession, we cannot attribute absolute necessity to the
occurrence of the last member; and therefore none of the
members is absolutely necessary, but all are contingent (cf. * 37»
14-25). Thus, e.g., in the building of a house, the succession
begins with the preparation of the clay or the shaping of the
stones, proceeds through the laying of the foundations, and
terminates in the coming-to-be of the house (37> 31-33; cf.
br4-18 and Post. Anal. 9532-37). But the coming-to-be
of the house is not dAds dvayxaiov. For, if it were, it would
have to be det. What és e€ avdyxns darAGs, cannot possibly ot-be :
i.e. its deing is eternal. Similarly, if the yéveous of anything is ég
avaykyns ardds, the yéveors cannot possibly fail: i.e. the yéveots
is eternal, or the thing is del rH yevéere (37> 33—38%3: cf. e.g.
Eth, Nic. 1139 23-24, de Part. Anim. 639” 21—640* 9). But
it would be absurd to contend that ‘ house’ is det 79 -yevéoe. When
the foundations have been laid, the succession may nevertheless
remain uncompleted, since on any given occasion a house
évdexerar py yiverOar (37 32-33. drav yap yevyrar, sc. Heweduos.
TovTO, SC. THY oiKiar). | i

In > 33 I have retained 76, although it rests only upon Lé&¢,
because the atpumnene gains in clearness and force by its re-
tention.

38* 5-17. dvdyxn .. . xUkdo. The argument is in substance
clear, though the text seems to have got disturbed at ® ro.

Coming-to-be must either go on ad infinitum, or come to a stop,
i.e. be finite. If finite, it cannot be eternal. Since, therefore,
it is to be eternal (as was shown in B. 10), it must go on ad
infinitum. If so, there are two alternatives. It must either
(i) proceed ad cnfinitum in a straight line or (ii) return upon
itself in a circle, i.e. form endlessly-repeated cycles. Now ¢he
first of these alternatives (®6 rovrwy refers to the immediately
preceding hari Viz. kat ei py, 7 eis 00d 7} KUKAW) iS impossible.
For (cf. *37>25-29) in an infinite rectilinear succession of
yryvopeva there can be no dpx7, and therefore no absolute necessity,
and therefore (cf. preceding note) no eternity.

Hence ¢he second alternative alone remains.

38° 8. AapBavonévwy. The genitive depends on dpyyv. ‘There
can be no dpxy of the members of an infinite rectilinear succession,
whether they be taken “downwards”, i.e. as if they were future
events, or “upwards ”, i.e. as if they were past events.’

38* 9-10. dvdyxy .. . elvat. The meaning appears to be:—

aI...

&B. rr. 337% 29—338> 6 275

‘Yet coming-to-be must have an originative source if it is to be
necessary and therefore eternal, nor can it be eternal if it is
limited.’ * But the text at ®10 is hopelessly corrupt. It seems
probable that the corrupt words tpyjre werepacpévyns ovoyst
conceal prjr’ éri mépas éxovons (cf: E), or par éri rerepacpévys
ed0eias (cf. &°, p. 312, 1. 1): but a clause must have dropped out
between dpxyv and pire. |

38° 10-17. 85 . . . KUkXw. The only remaining alternative
(* 38 5-17) is that the yéveous should be cyclical.

In a cyclical succession with e.g. four members (we can take
any number we like, for the principle is not affected: cf. @ 13-14
ovdevy . . . woAGv) we shall have A necessarily succeeded by B,
B by C, C by D, and D by A: and, conversely, D necessarily
presupposing C, C necessarily presupposing B, B A, and A D.
Whichever way we look at this cyclical succession, it must repeat
itself endlessly and continuously (#13 Kat... cuveyds). If e.g.
the earth be moistened, vapaur must rise: if vapour rises, cloud
must form: if cloud forms, rain must fall: and if rain falls, the
earth must be moistened, and the cycle has recommenced. And,
conversely, if rain falls, cloud must have formed: if cloud has
formed, vapour must have risen : if so, the earth must have been
moistened : if so, rain must have fallen :—and so on continuously
and ad infinitum (cf. Post. Anal. 96* 2-7).

38? 17 — © 5, taita,.. 606 rodtwy. The conclusion just established
(ratra, cf. * 14-17) is logically concordant with the eternity of the
revolution of the ovpavds which Aristotle had proved on other
grounds in Phys. ®. 7-9. For since that is circular and eternal,
it is also necessary: and the movements which are parts of it
(e. g. the movements of the inner concentric spheres), or dependent
upon it, will be necessary, eternal, and circular also. Thus the
outermost sphere, which is eternally being moved in a circle,
eternally sets the inner spheres moving in circles (> 1-3 ¢&...
xivyow). Hence the sun is eternally moved in a circle in
a determinate manner (? 3 xvxAw 8%, sc. in the ecliptic) and this
solar motion causes the eternal cyclical change of the seasons.
Finally, on the latter depend the eternally-repeated cyclical vital
periods of the living things on and about the earth: cf. * 368 r4—
18, * 36> 6-7, * » 8-10, * » ro-15.

In >3 I read xvxAw after wAws with EHJL. The ‘being
of the upper dopa’ is: of course equivalent to ‘the being of the
movement of the outermost sphere —a movement which is circular,

ioe

276 COMMENTARY

as Aristotle had just reminded his readers (384 18-19). 8¢, in
the same line, I take to refer to the speczal nature of the circular
path of the sun’s annual movement, viz. its inclination to the
equator, on which the alternation of the seasons depends. Bonitz
reads KikAw, 6 HALos di (Sc. kvKAw) with F: and in © 4 he proposes
(obros) ovrws (cf. J). Neither of these readings appears to be
necessary, though both are tempting.

- 38> 6-19. ti... etvar. Aristotle here formulates (> 6-11) and
solves (Dr1-19) a subsidiary problem: cf. * 374 34—38> 19.
Why do some yevyta kat POapra form cyclical successions, whilst
others apparently do not? Why e. g. is there obviously a cycle in
which rain (6 vdara, ‘ showers’) produces cloud, cloud rain, and
rain cloud once more (cf. * 38% 10-17): whereas the succession
of the yevéoess of men and animals appears (P11 éouxev) to be
rectilinear ? |

The solution depends on the recognition of a difference in the
sense in which ‘ the same’ member recurs. For (i) in some cycles
the same individual eternally recurs: whilst (ii) in others no
member recurs individually the same, but the same sfecies, or
specific form, is eternally represented in the succession of its
perishing individual embodiments. Thus (i) the heavenly bodies—
e.g. the sun and the planets—have a ‘being’ or ‘substance’
(514, 19 ovata) which is free from all forms of change except
motion. Each of them is the unique singular representative of
a species (cf. Introd. § 10) and persists as an eternally-identical
individual, returning in eternally-repeated revolutions to the same
point on its orbit. But (ii) the yevyta Kai pOaprd (e.g. the
individual animals and men, and the individual clouds and
showers of rain) have a ‘ being’ or ‘substance’ which is subject
to pOopa. As individuals, therefore, they come-to-be and pass-
away once and for ever. Nevertheless rain and cloud eternally
recur in a cycle: though the cloud, from which this shower falls,
is only specifically (not individually) identical with the cloud
to which this shower gives rise. Similarly there is a cycle in
the endless rectilinear succession of the individuals of an animal
species. The individual animals, indeed, like the individual
clouds and showers, occur once and vanish for ever: but their

‘form’ or species exists eternally in the sense that it ‘recurs’
without interruption and without end in its individual embodiments
(cf. * 36> 26-34, * > 30-32, * 3721, *37> 14-25).

g8>15. i. . . Kwounévw. For xivnows is an adjectival and

B. 11. 3385 6-19 277

depends—like a zaos—upon the substance, or subject, of which
it is predicated: cf. e. g. Metaph. 1070 36—1071* 2.

38> 18-19. ei. .. elvat. As Philoponos rightly explains, this
is intended to meet a criticism which might be made by a follower
of Empedokles. For Empedokles (cf. * 15% 4-8) insisted that
Earth, Air, Fire, and Water were eternal and indestructible. Accor-
ding to him, therefore, their otoia is dpOapros: so that, even
if they recur as individually-identical members of a cycle, this
does not conflict with the solution which Aristotle has just
given.

INDEX TO THE TEXT

314*—338” = 14%—38?
+ = recurrit non semel in contextu

70 ayabdy - 33” 19 tov BeXrTiovos
dpéyerOa 36°27

dyyetov 20°9

ayevnros 37*20

d-yvoeiv 14°13

TO &yvwortov opp. TO ématntév 18°23

ddiaiperos 1620+ ; 25°9+ ; 26°18;
34°28 ddiaipera Tovs OyKous 27% 21
Ta adiaipera 26%1 + ddiaipera
peyéOn 15°27; 16°16 (coni. ow-
para) —orTepea25>7+ —ow-
parat4*21; 15°32 o@pa dbiai-
perov i) mAaTOs 27°8 mept ddiat-
pérov peyedav 16°14 sqq.

Giiapopos 23” 19

ddiopiatws 22°5

advvatov ph elvat opp. — evar 35 *
35 7a ddvvata (opp. 7a SduvaTa)
pn elvar 37°11 ddvvara 15°20;
16°X7 3 198145 20°F

dei opp. ws éml 7d modv 33°5+
— eivar = ef avdynns eva 37°34

i Se
aepoedns 30° 24

dnpi7*29;19%2+; 208+; 21°11 +5,

27%4+ 3; 28°34; 29%2; 30°3—
33°33; 35°4+ 3 37°4+ 5 3896+
—coni. mvedpa 1829 — coni. dup
kal Ta diadava 24°29 — et yf con-
traria sunt 31°25; 35%5 6 dnp Oeppov
kat bypév (ofov atpis yap 6 dnp) 30°4
— bypod padAov 7 Oeppov 31°5
— émeikas dvaic@nrov 1920 anp=
Empedoclis elementum 14%26+

dOewpnroa Tav imapydvTav bytes 16*8

dibios 222; 36%15; 3841+ Ta
diéia coni, mp@Ta 35%29 et
dvaykns €otw 35°34, cf. 38%1

aiéhp apud Empedoclem 33°2; 34%1+

aiva 19°16

70 aic@dvecOa 18°22 +

aic@nats 18523; 27°35; 298; 3124
inepBavtes tiv aic@now nal Trapi-

ddvrTes adTHy 25°13 Kata THY
alaOnow 31°8; 36°16 — opp.
kar’ ddnPeav 1829 mpos TH

aicOnow 25°24; 27°33; 2820
ai aid@noes 1919; 24°28
alcOnrés 16°19; 19%2; 19>11+;
2052; 28°33; 29*%11+; 32°26
—opp.dgavns18°19+ aicOnrov
onpetoy 21°14 —o@pa = dnrdv

29°% ai aic@nrat évayriwoes
29°13
airia ws tAn 19*%19 ws év vAns

elder TiOepévn aitia 18%9 }) kata.
70 eldos aitia 36%3 = aitia = causa
efficiens opp. causa materialis 18*1
— ixavh 18°27; 359 = vpiw-
Tépa — 35°35 Tas aitias 5iatpe-
Téov 14%2 ‘aitias coni. apxai
26% 35

aittov ws bAn 35°33; (opp. ws 7d ov
évexa) 35°5 airiov THs KVvhTEws
34°8 — ws dbev apy? THs
Kunoews 24°13 = ta. alma 20 %2

aiti@Tepov Tod yervay 35°26

dxivntos 18% 4; 23%14—25*15; 37°19
dxlvntor f kwvovpeva ai ariypai 16" 5
axivntos apxn 18*5

dKodovbeiy TH AdyY 25°14 —TO an-
Topévy (coni. evdparov eivar) 29” 35
— kara dAdéyov 30°1 h Kivnos
dKorovdet TH Kwvovpévy 38°15

dxovev 24°28

dxpiB@s opp. padrax@s (damodeitar)
33°25 du piBéar epov 29*27

dxpa opp. péca 30°33 Oar epa
axpa Tay évavTiov 35°8 ém 7D
dkpw Opp: péow 32°7 ém Trois
dxpos 32°8

kar’ GAj@eav opp. kata Ségay 18°28
— opp. xara tiv aicbnow 1832
70 Kar’ GAnbeaay & 25°35 ovTws
dnephvavro wept THs GAnOeias 25°17

TaAnGés 18°26 @ovTo TadAnOes ev
TH paivecdats5”»g raddnO&s wOAAG
25°36 pakp@ ddnPéoraroy 29% 21

GAN h 16%29; 26°24; 33°35;
37°28

GdAaTTEV 20% 20

TO ddAoodv Coni, TO pEeTaTXnpaTiCoy

Se ee eee

INDEX TO

35°26 —xal 4 apy? Tis Kuvqoews
év TO adbfavopérw kai TO GAA oLovperw
216

dAXdoiwos 14%3-—1523; 17" 194 ;
20°6+; 27°16; 28% 29—29"2;
31° 93 32°8 + ; 37°35 —coni. 73
nda xe 25>2 % ddrdolwois def.
19”I0 = } twept 1a0os peraBoAn
20°14; cf.17%27,19 33. — «ara
Ta Tov amTav mdOn éoriv 31*10
unam subiectam ,materiam neces-
sario praesumit 14? 29sqq. TE i Scapé-
povow ddAdAoiwors Kal yéveots 19°6—
20*%7 (cf. 145 sqq., 15°6 sqq-)
ai ddA oda ELs at Tis puxis 34° II

GAAo Kat dAAo 21°25 évavriov
Soneiy dry kat Gry 15°12 éy
ddAows 15°31; 17° 133 20°18 = kar’
GAXo péy Kwovv Kar’ dAdo 5 Kvov-
pevov 264 «al drAAws 38°18

dAAST pros opp. oixetos 30°17 + Ta
dAAGrpia opp. Ta dudpvaa 29” 28

ddoyia 15°33

dpapravew 29*10

dpueyéOns 16%27;
dowparos 20*31

aperdPinra 33°31
32 *28

dpovoia 19 b27

dpovoos 1925+ 3 34%12

dpxpor Epos ay: 17; 20°34

dv dryec bau 30°25

dvarynd tev Sox@v Adyos 163, 34

dvaykatov 37°29 — dmdds 3710
mapa TO dvaryeatov a5%%

dvaryeaotiKol ASyou 15°21

20532 —coni.

— eis dAAnAa

e avarynns 20°17; 25°33 37°9+ ;

38° 1+ — eva = dtdiov evar
38*1 sqq., cf. 35°34 i } yéveots
€é avaryens, didios % yéveois 38%2
ef dydrykns elvas opp. évdexeobau T)
yevéobau 372, cf. 35 avayrn
yeréaOat == odx ‘ody Te [tH évdéxeobat
37° 13 éora avaynn ‘yeréabat

amA@s Opp. é¢ robécews 37> >26
70 eg avaynns kal del Gua 37°35
70 ef dvdryiens GmA@s 38°15

dvaupety 25% a 27°15

dvaicOnros 19' 18 + 5 32°35 - dvai-
oOnrov coni. To why ov 19*24+

dvaxdparey ag%a- g796%. 26%E>
38°5 +

dvaxuxdeiy kal dvaxapnrew 38% 4

(dvadionev) dvndwrat 18°17

dvaddolwros 37 *20

dvaroyia oupBdyrd opp. HETPY TOV
Suvdpeaw 33°31 kat’ dvadoyilav
Opp. T@ Tov road per py 0s tt

oOa) 33°28

THE TEXT 249

dvddoyov nbgnras 21°29

dvdAvats 29* 23

’"Avagayépas citatur 14°14 eoni.
Bpmsdand§s, Aeviummos, Anpoxperos
14*I2sqq. — Thy oixeiay pwriv
Tyonoev 148t3. | — Ta dporopeph
oroxeta tlOnow 14°19 oi meEpi
‘Anagaryépay Opp. Tois wep "Eumedo-
Kréa, 14% 25

dvamdno rics 29” 34, 30°1 +

avemioTn pov 39) 17

dvO pornos 19” 25 + ; 20° 20 ; 22°17;
24*16+ 3 33° 7 + dv6 porrrot wal
(ea ove dvakdpnrovow eis avtovs
38>8

dvioos 36°5

Ta dvoporopeph opp. 7a dporopepy
a1>r7+

dvd novos 22°45 24°4+
kai Ta Sidpopa 236

dvTiceioOat 30% 16 +
23°8; 24°7

dv rio Tpepey ADE 29% 37°24; 38%11

dvTiT evar 23%18; 30°21

dvw pépecOa 34% t+ dive opp.
KATO (nuveioOar) 33°28 + a as”
én THY yevopévav opp. Keres is eri
TOV éoopévaw 38%9 H dvw popa
383 70 dvw Kal 7O Katw Kal -Ta
TowavTa Tav dayTiKepévav = Tét0V
diapopa mpwrn 237

TA dvwbev opp. TA KaTW, TA KATWOEY
(rob Il) 33°14

dyvwparia 36% 30

dydspados Kivnots 365 — bAn
(36? a1 dvdpadot yevécers 36% 22

déparos 16 33; ; 24°30; 28°30

ddépiatos 29” 30

dnd-yew 36°18

dmadns 24°33; 24°13; 26%1 1; 27°17
anadj Opp. nabiprind (se. Ta Toin-
TIKG) 24? 5+ doa Bn € exet THY
abriy vAny, noe anadh dvta 24% 34,
cf, 28% 21

dmavoros 18*25

dmespia 16°6

dmeipos 14*18+ ; 15,910 + ; 26%35%
32°14; 33° 7+; 37°9 =~ OPPe
Tem EpagpEvos 18*19 — opp. BEX pr
Tov (se. h Optus) 16230 admecpov
Kar’ évépyeray Opp. Suva pee ént Tv
diaipeow18%21 896 TOd dmetpor 37°28
— Kat TO TEpLEXOV 32°25 TO
dmeipov TovTo, 6 A€yougi Ties elvat
Thy apxnv 29*12 drerpou Brae

4 >
TQ avépoa

Ta dvrikeipeva

20°10 — évayridtyntes 32°14;
33°7 + amet pots diplobas oXHpace
(opp. cpio pévors) 25 27 eis

b

dmepoy ovx oldy te i€var 32°30

280 INDEX TO THE TEXT

els dreipov iévar (opp. orfva) 32”
13; (opp. mépas éxew) 37°25

dmépxecOau 1652+ ; 18%14+; 36%9

eis dwéxovTa Kal Kexwpiopéva (peyéOn
SiarpetoOa) 16°29

dmévae 21%4+3; 21513; 28°13;
36°4

dmAovs opp. ovvOeros 1428 —opp.
purrés 30°22, cf. 34532 Trad dmdra
(sc. o@para = dnp, yn, twUp, bdwp)
34°32+3; 35%9+ amd@s AEvyer
(6 *EpmedoxdAjs) 33°22 quid
significet 76 dwA@s 17°5 andj
yeveots, AnAf POopa, TA ATAG owWpaTa
vide s. vv. yéveots, PO0pa, o@pa

dmoBoAn 35°15

dmodei~ar 33°25

dmobiddvac 18°73; 19°73; 26%4; 33°43
36°1

dmobev 27° 4

dmodavev 218

dmédAvoOat 14°14; 19%22 admrddrAwdre
21°16 dmoAwddTa 27°26

dnovépev Thy aitiay 36%9

dmopetv 1720; 19%22; 37°8 TO

vov dmopndév 18* 11

drdpnyua 27°32

dmopia 16*14; 16°19; 21°11; 34°
21; 34°3 — OBavpaorn 17°18
— lkavn 18*13
kat evAoyo: 15°19

dmopaivesOa: 16*9; 25°17

dmépacis 17°11

dnrecba Tihs (nthgews 20°34 —Tov
KavoTOD 22*10 — THs piaews
24°15 — Sdov bAov 30%2 —opp.
dnobev elvac 27%3 —Zdinpnpuévov
opp. ouvexeés elvar 25%7 dadTe yap

doptat moAAal

hurovto (ai orvypai) 16*30 70
dnrecOa = TO Ta €ayxata éxev dpa
gn%3 T® GwrecOa = kata tiv

dpny (moetv) 26°23 6 S:opropos
Tov GnrecOa 23*22sqq. Tddmrd-
pevoy Gntopévov Gmrépevoy 23% 25 +
dKodovbeiy TH GnTopévw 30°11 = ga-
pev Tov AvTOUVTA GrrecOa Huav 23%
33 brav airara fvAa ApO7 22°16

dmrixds 22% 27

amréy coni. yj 18°31 = aicOnrév
=00 halodnos dph29°8 ochparos
dnrov na0os j dmrév 29°15 = darr?}
évavTiwats 29°11 Ta data 31*10
TaY array Tota mara Svapopal Kai
évavriwoes 2917 sqq.

dpdev 35°14

dpbpuds 3611; 37%24
toa (af dpxai) 35%28
dpOpov évds 29*1
cider 3813+

Tov dpiO pov
mA€ia TOV
apOue opp.
— dist. duvdpe

(sc. els) 266 7 dpiOu@ opp.
T@ Adyw (sc. els) 20°14

of dpxaio. 14°6; 25%3

dpxn = principium reale 1519; 29%
13+; (coni. mpwrn) 29%29; 326;
(rod dmeipov) 37°28, cf. 38°8+
dpxai 14°16 (cf. 14*11 et °4); 30?
11; 35°26; (coni. orotxeia) 295

dpxn = initium disputationis 15°24;

22°26; 25*15 -26°302 38 11 | &
dpxijs 16°18; 21°1; 27%32 év
apxn 27°73 37°25
Gpxr mpwrn rev aitiwy 24%27 dp-
xat Kal airias Tov cvpBavdvrwv 26%
35 _ aic@nrov awparos dpxai 29”7
(cf. °4); (coni. ef5n) 299 7)
apxh THs Kwhoews 21°63; 24%27;
24°14, cf. 34%9 et 37%22 aitia
dev tiv dapxnv civat papey Tis
Kivnoews 18%F €ore 52 pev
iarpixt) ws dpxn (sc. moody) opp.
70 a.riov 70 ws Eaxarov 243
dxivyntos dpxn 18°5, cf. did 7d méppw
THs apxfs apioracba 36” 31

dowparos coni. dueyéOns 20% 30 eis
dowparov épOappévoy 76 cHpa 16” 26
dowpary aigavecOu 21%5 +; 21°16

drpis 30°4

dropa peyéOn 16%11; 16°32; 1791
eis dropa Kat & dropwr 17°13

avrds 22°28+ peiCous avdAol 22°31

avéarev intrans. 21°31; cf. fortasse
nupt yap avge Td mip 331 = ave
trans. 22%22; (apud Empedoclem)
33°1 adfavecOa 153+; 20%2—
22*11; 3353 avfecOa 22%24;
33°3 TO avfoy 21*9

avfn nat pbiows 19°32

abgnors 14°33; 15%28+; 25°45; 33%
35 —Kal pOiow14°15+; 27%23
= petaBodAn Kara péyeOos 14°15,
mepi péyeOos (ueTaBorAn)20*%14 Tepl
avfnoews 20° 8—22%33 avénots
dist. yéveois 20°10 sqq.; 22%4-16
— dist. rpopy ( =nutritio) 22* 20-28
avénots Tov Kparodvros 28% 25

avfgntixov oapkds 22°27 TO évov
avénrikdy 22°12

dnd tabroparov Kal ard TUxns 33°6

dpaperdés 15°12

dpavns 18 21

dpavifecdu 28°13

aon =contactus 2222+; 2826
— coni. diaipecis et orirypn 16°7

— del pia dvoiv rwav 1696 —Hhe

Tots puaikols 23*°34 Kata Ti aphy
25°32; 2622 did Te TOU Kevod Kal
bid THs apps 25°31 mept apis
22°29—23%34 dai coni. orrypai

eS a

ee aie hee

a ae

INDEX TO THE TEXT 281

16°4,°15 ard rds dpds 26°12; ei} yéveais ef dvd-yens, didios 4 yéveots
27% 12 TovTOU 38*2, cf. 37°34 év 7H
apn = } anriKn aia Onocs 19” 19; 29° Kin HUTTE kal yevéoe earl 1d ef
8+ ward Thy apny 2910+ dvdrynns GmrA@s 38°15 eis edOD...
dpOapros a3"42 — opp. p@aprh v7] yéveais 3811
ovaia) 38°14 TEpl yevegews THs TOV oroixelay (éoxé-
dpioracbat 36°31 yaro TAdrov) 15% 30, cf. 29°13
dxwpioros 20°13; 29°30; 32°1 sqq- yéveow Kal pOopav quo-
modo explicaverit 6 év To Saidwnr
Badiev 37°7+ Zonparns 35° 9 sq.
eis BABos Opp. émmoAjs 30°18 8 & TO Tept yeveseas Kal i pOopas THs amas 15%
Bde 30% 21 26—19"5 mas éoriv dmAR yeveas
Bapos opp. koupérns 2 3*8 17” 19 sqq. Th drapépovary yéveats
Bapus opp. Kovpos 29°12 ; 29° 19+ kat ddAoiwors 19°6—20* 7 (cf. 14°5
Thy ynv Bapd Kai ondnpdv (Ae yer sqq-, 1 5°6 sqq.) wives dist.
6 Ryxetounip) 15°11 70 Bapd avénars 20* 10sqq.; 22 *4-16 mept
coni. yn 19° 31 Baptrepov kara THS ef GAAG Kew ‘yevéoews Ta dmhaiv
Thy bmepoxnv 26%9 owparov 31 *7— 33°15 dva-ytn yé-
Bapirns opp. Koupédrns 26%7 veow elvat ouvexiis 36*1 +—37 33
Bia coni. mapa puow, Opp. Kata pvow yernrds (yevvnrés) 35%24 Ri d yevnrov
(«eretadat) 3326+ kat poaprov 27°8; 35” 33.-37°16
Bios 36°12 Bion 36° 11 Ta yer 35°32; 35°6
Bréwev 6¢0 28°14 mpds dAiya BAE- ~—-YevrvGv -14°9; 22°64; 95*34; 26°
paves 16%9 eis éxeivo BAdLartes 29; 27°20 ; 30°10; 34°22; 35°
24°22 31-36? 8 mabos ‘yevvav "1634
Bpaxiwv coni. xeip 21°32, cf. 22%19 every noay 15*18
(Bpéxecv) BeBpeypévov dist. diepdv 30° 76 ‘yermsycr 36°18
17 def. 30% 22 yévos 24” 7 7d yevn 14°4 Tdvaytia
ev to aire ever nayTa 24°2 TO
yeAotov 26°17 + yéver ai adrai (ai dpxat) 35°29
yéveots opp. poicrs 36°14 eh eg TO yeve Spovov wat TavTd Opp. Tw
GAAHAwWY Tg9* 4 —hxata piow — cide dvd povov 2332; 24°6
3374 — ovykpice opp. pOopa of yewpryot 35°14
Siaxpicer 16°33, cf ai yevéoes wal yf} 14° 26+; 1894+ 5 19 "16+; 29° £
ai diaxpioes 35> 39. utrum ovy- 30°3—32 b28; 3 nat 5 358 3 He
Kpiots v7) yéveois 15°90,. 6. 59%31 — coni. 7d Bapd 19*30 — dépt
TA ouvex@s KiVoUpEva KaTa yéveow évayTiov éoriv 31°23 35°5 —wWw-
37°34 wept Thy yéveow opp. én xpov Kai énpdv go” 5 — £npod
Tov eivar 37°12 h yéveots eis aa t ux pod 31° 4 76 dy Kal
Towvayriov 24%12 —els évavtia Kal TO pn bv eva pacnaw (Tlappevidys)
e &vayriwy 31*14, cf. 35°7 mip Kal ynv 187 7) = Empe-
yeveors =f éx Tovde eis TO5e peTaBoAN doclis elementum 14%26—15%22;
20°13 — ovcias kali Tov Tovde 33° I2+

. TOD ToLOvdE Kal Togovde Kal TOU —*ynivos 26°31
z te kadoupevy anh yéveots =-yiveoOai 7 opp. yivecOat dmrA@s 18%

14°79 v7] andj} kal Tedela yéveots 33+ 3 ; 19* 3 sqq. amdds yivecOa
17919 v7] dads yéveots Opp. 7 kat pOeiperbat 17°33; 18%28+ ;
Kata HE pos 17°35 — opp. mis 185313 +

yévens 175; 1854. =% els 7d yAicxpov 28" 4 4; 29?20+ — opp.
amd@s dv (58d) 18°10 = p0opa kpavipov 2 bao =—def. 30%5

Tivos 1833 yéeveois dmAGs Opp. yvedrys 2912

yéveots Tovdi (= popa Tovdt) 18* youn 19°16

32, ch” $. } Oar épov yéveots GAAov =—-ypdpara 1 1507 5

p0opa 19* 20, cf. 36° 24. hyévecis = =-ypauph 23 »26 + ypappai 20°15
= poopa Tov Bi) éyTos Ig 28 = ywroerdns 19° 14

= Tuyxdvet ovca ev 7 mept TO pécov

ToTw 35%24 avdayen yeveow elva 8é iteratur 14* 12; I9*I1

kai pOopav mept 70 Suvaroy eivar wal — Secxvdvar 3231 bé5ecxTa 32°31;
ph eivar 35°4 36*15 + dederypévov 33°3

282 INDEX TO

déov GAov Tt OewpHoa 23°17 ws TO
Ady. déov dkodrovOeivy 25*14

dextixds 20°3 + paivera .. . ws
Oarepov pev dextindy OaTepov 5° elbos
28?r1

d€éuas' (apud Empedoclem) 33”2

5éxecOau 26°17

7a Snpuovpyodvra (sc. 7d Oeppov Kal 7d
puxpdév) opp. 7d év 30°13

Anudxpitos 15°35; 16%1+ 3 23°10;
26%9; 27°19 = -— coni. Aevaimmos
14*%21; 1556+ 5 25%! — coni.
"Avagaydpas, Aevaimmos 14°18 3=—
negat colorem16*1 _ eius sententia
de agente et patiente 23°11 sqq.
Democriti et Leucippi doctrina ex-
ponitur (vel examinatur) 14°21 sqq ;
15°6 sqq.; 25*1sqq.; 25°34 sqq.

5:abiyn (vox Democriti) 15°35; 27%
18

diapeiy 16% 23; 16°9; 18°96 —xaTa
Hépos 16" 30 — els éwimeda 16% 3
diarpecoOa = 16°18+; 1624+;
25°7+; 27*10+; 28°16; 36%10
— kata nay onpeiov 16531 — eis
xwpiora Kal det eis éAaTTw peyebn
16528 — eis éddrTw bddria 17* 28
— eis pupia pupidecs Sinpnpeva 16* 22
— eis puxpad 27°33 — eis Ta
éAdxiora 2896 «=0 — eis pndév 17°6
diarperéov 14%2; 27°32; 29°17
— 70 dmdpnya 27°32 dunpnpéva
MeyeOn 23°5 +

diaipeois 16%16—17*153 27°17; 28%
15 —coni. agn, orrypn 16°7
duvaper emi thy dratpeow (Gretpov)
18°21 ©=©TAdtaw év rais diarpéceowv
(cf. Timaeus 35% sqq.) 30°16

diaperds 1652; 17*%10+3 25°32;
26°4+; 27*10+; 28%4 navrn
diarperév 16°15—17%3; 25%8; 26%
26+; 27°7 diauperov Kad’
étiovv onpeiov 16°20 — xara
Héoov17*10 — ra. Seaupera 281 +

Siaxpivey 33°20; 34%1 — opp.
oumotavat 36°4 = ovykpiver Ta
dudpvda 29°27 Siaxpiveoba opp.
ovykpivecOa 15°17; 17%273 22°
10; 293 —xaTda tds ads 27°11

didxprots Opp. avyxpiots 17°13; 227;
29°7; 33°13 S:axpioe opp. ovy-
wpioe. 158; 163431718 + dia-
kpige Eoxev (% Kara ptow kivgas)
33°31 ai duaxpices opp. ai yevé-
ges 25°30

diareimew 371

diddAafis Te peryévtww (cit. ex Emped.)
14°85 33°14

diadvew 1522+ —péxps ememédwv

THE TEXT

15°32 sadrdvecOa 16°13 ; 26%27

— opp. scumévac 146 —opp.
ovvicrag@a 25%32 — opp. ovy-
KetoOa 25°19 :

didAvors opp. ovvOeos 15%24 —coni.
pOopa 25°3

diapeve 2729

diavépecOar 320°6

dianinrey 35%3

diamopeiy 19*93. 79247 Sinndpnra
r7P 135 aah ag 7a Sinmopnpéva
20°25 7a diamoonbévra 27” 10

didornpa 365

diareive 26°35

diaredcivy 17°30

diapavns 1923 = ra Srapav7y 24” 30;

26°13 paAdov éxev (mdpous) Ta
duapavh padrdrov 24°32

diapépev ara mpds avTd 14*23 —ev
TO Tas 15"1 —ravras Tais dia-
popais 1817 =—s- 70. Be Hrapeper 17*
23 Ta €repa Kal diapépovra 23 ”
12 diapépovta aynpare 25°18
— Thy piow 26°1

diapevyev ri Siaipeory 16°16

diapopa 18154 3 28°30 —coni.
évavTiwois 32°11 mpos GAAnAG
diapopa 20°12 Témov Siapopa
TpwTn 23°77 d:apopat coni. 740
15*8 + — tov oroxeiwy (Em-
pedoclis) 14°18 af ravaxnparow
d:apopai (Democriti) 16*1

ai iapopai 29°33—31°15 mpa@ra

diaopai Kat évayvtwwoes 29°17, cf.
ai mp@ra térrapes (sc. Siapopat)
30°25

Ta Siapopa 23°7

deipyew 25°5

defedOetv 33°%9

TO Stepdv def. 30°16 — opp. 70
énpév 30°13 + dist. BeBpeypévov
30* 16-18

Suevar kata Tas Apas 26°12 = Ba. TV

mopwv Sudv opp. Kata tiv anv
— (moreiv) 26" 22
(Susravar) dn dv eorhKkecav 37°12
Avoyévns 22° 13
70 diopav 26°11
dopiCew 14522; 15°23; 18>13 23%
16; 24993 a5"; '27°6; 37°97
dopi{ecdae 146; 17%30+3 17°
14+ 3 1811; 19%5+; 20°18;
2117; 229+; 23°34; 24°23;
27°28; 29°27+ 5 31°73 36*%14—
37°25
Siopropds 23°22; 29°14; 34°21
dimAovs 37°13
dittdés 2120 .
5x@s 20°32; 24°26

*

INDEX TO

Sidney TaANGEs 18° 26

5vopdes (cit. ex Emped.) 14°22

kara dégav opp. kar’ ddAndeav 18°27

dpay 28°35

dvero (cit. ex Emped.) 34%5

Svvapis 18924 — Ts ev VAn 22%28
érépa Svvays opp. 4} An 35°31
owlerar Stvayis abrav 27°31
Ta Kara Sivayv mparropeva 35°23
Tas Suvapes oupBddAdA{coOar 33*28
Hétpy Tov Suvapeow 33%32 Tais
duvvapeow icdleav 28%29 Tas
duvdpes br As yerv@ou (Ta owpara)
36*1 kata Ta mwaOn Kal Tas
Suvdpes 37°3

duvdpe: 16°12 + 5 179274 ; 20°15;

22*21 +; 29°33; 34°14+ —dist.
dpiOu® (eis) 266 — opp. évTe-
Aexeia 16213 175164; 20°13 4;
20526; 22°6+; 26°31; 34°9
— opp. évepyeiag 2723-4 —opp.
kar’ évépyeav 18% 21

dvvacda 1825; 24°8; 33%24+

TO Suvaroy eivar wal pr iva 35°33;
35°4 (cf.22) 7a dvvard opp. Ta
ddvvara (pur evar) 37°12

dvadpiotos 29° 32

h éyudcors 364
éyxetpety 16% 4
eyxmpeiy 23°12; 31°30
eldos 21°21 + 3 22%2+4 3 28%28; 28>
113 35*%19 =6dvvapis ris év bAn 22°
28 — Tt xwpiorov 7 mdBos 163
— (coni. «arnyopia Tis) opp. or épnors
18°17 — coni. 7é5e re 18°32
— coni. cxjpa 21°28 — coni.
Hoppn 35*%16+; 35°6 Ta & vAn
eldos Exovta 21” 21
Kata 70 eldos opp. Kara tiv vAnv
21>23+4 h watda 7d eidos aitia
36%2 eiSec opp. dprOu@ (6 abrds)
38°17 T@ cide opp. dpiduo
(dvaxdprrev) 38°13, 16 —opp.
TH yévee 2332; 24°6 ws év
vAns cide TWEpevn aitia 18*9
ei5n (coni. TéAn) = fers Tevés 24°17
— coni. dpxai 299
Ta edn (év TS Saldwrr) dist. 7a pebex-
Tika. Tov eib@y 35°124+. —olera
(6 Swxparns) aimia eivar yevécews
kat pOopas 35°15 % Taw eldav
gio 35°10 eivar Kata 70 €idos
opp. yiveoOa: Kata Tip peTradnpw
Kal OeipecOar kata tiv dmoBoAnv
35°13
eixdTws 19% 27

THE TEXT 283

eiAtkpwéotata opp. pepmiypéva paAdov

30°33

elvac coni. (qv 18°25 Rv 282;

31°23; 33%22; 33°23 rdadrd pév,
70 8 eva: GAAo 22%26 = FT. abd, 7d
3 eiva od 70 adrd 19°3 én Tov
elva: opp. wept ty yéveow 37°11
70 evopior civar 282, cf. 3324
70 ora dist. 7d wéAAE 374 = 70
tiéore 213 = rd. Tk Hv €ivae coni.
) Hopp 35°35

7d 6v17"6; 1856 +3 19%32; 25°34;
36%21+ TO pn ov 17°34;
18%14—19*32; 36%21+ TddmAas

_ & opp. 7d pr dv adtdds 18°10

TO Kupiws dv 25°29 = 70 Suvdpe
dv évredexeig 5 py dv 17°17, cf.
27 = ra OvTa 1526; 18%16+ ;
22527; 25%25; 26°29—2816;
37°8 ragvoe dvra33"17 8 Ta
dAws ove OvTa 27°6

ws eimeiv15%4; 24°6 ws 52 puxpdy map- —

exBaow eimeiy 25°36 eimerev 152

eirep elliptice 21°17
(eis) 7d & 25°26; 30°13 — opp.

TA TOAAG 31 *25 TO KaT’ GAnbeay
év opp. 7a dAnO@s modAAd 25% 35
émt Tou évds 32°14 70 & ( = Em-

pedoclis Spaipos) 15°7+, opp. 7a
ToAAd 15*20

eigedOeiv 21°8 +
ws éxdotn 17°8 xa@’ xaoroy opp.

Kabddrov 31% 21 Ta Ka’ éxaora

22°18; (opp. Ta xaOddrov) 35°27

Ti TowvTov Tav Kab’ Exacta deEYo-
ld ” a

pévow aitiov 1878

éxmpiopa 16*%34

édaia 339

éAaov 30°*6
éAarrov yeyovéva opp. nvéjoba 21*3

— opp. peilov yeyoveva: 21°14
én’ XaTTov TA Gpodoyoupeva cuvopav
16%5 én éddrrw opp. ém mArciw
TOmOV 20°24 Ta éhaxLoTA 28°6
ai éAaxeoTrat (évaytidrynTes) 32%2

TO €Aauvdpevoy 20% 21

éAAeutlis 30°7

épplyrvvoda 15°13

"EpmedoxAjs 24°33; 25°1+ 3 29%3;

(coni. €repor) 291; 30°20; 33%
18 + 5 34°27 — citatur 14°7,
20; 33°19; 33°1, 14,155 34°3) 5
— coni. *Avagaydépas, Aevxurmos,
Anpoxpiros 14°11 sqq. — owe
évaytia Aéyew Kal mpds Ta pavd-
peva kat mpos atrov avrés 15* 3
— ovdey wept picews A€yer 33°18
of wept “EumedoxAéa opp. of epi
*Avagarydpay 14°25 sqq.

284 INDEX TO THE TEXT

Empedocles sex ponit ororxeia, h. e.
quatuor. elementa et duas motrices
causas 14°16, 17 — quatuor
ponit oroxeia 14% 26; 29%3; 30°20
— negat generationem elementorum
15%4, generat tamen e Sphaero 15°

7sqq. examinatur Emp. sententia _

de generatione et alteratione 14°4
sqq.; de poris 24°33 $4. (comp.
cum Leucippi doctrina 25°5 sqq.) ;
de motu 33°22 sqq. tota eius
doctrina examinatur et reprehenditur
33°16 sqq.

Ta. éumodiv 23°27

éproteiy 35°21

éumpooGev 32°31 ra €umpoobev 33°*6

70 év @ (mvetra) 37% 26+

évavrioroyia 23°17

Ta évaytia 14526; 19%20+ ; 19%2;
a4°a+3 29°31 3 30°31; 31*a—
32>213 3451343 35°8 rTivévar-
tiev aitia tavaytia 36°31; 36%9
Ta 7’ évavtia kal Ta petagd 24%8, cf.
19°12 els rovvavtiov (4 yéveats)
24°12+ ; (weraBaddAav) 32°14
Tovvaytiov (e contrario) 33°30;
34°14 évaytiws Aéyey 14% 24

évavridtns 32%34—33°6 per’
évavTtoTnTos 32%23 évavTidrnres
dretpor 32°14; 33°7 +

évavtiwots 1921; 20°53; 23°9; 29”
O+ 5 31°15 —ais@ntn 29*I0,
dmth 2911 —coni. dksagpopa 32% 10,
cf.29°17 % weraBodr THs évayTiw-
cewsig3r évavTimow éxev 28%32 ;
(dist. évayria evar) 23°30 kar’
évavriwaw di:apépav 29” 10 per’
evavTiwo ews 29% 26

ai évavTiwoes Opp. TO Suvdper o@pa

aig@nrév 29° 34 — ov peraBad-
ovary 29°2 ai aic@nrai évay-
Tiwoes 29°13 évavTimoes Kata
tiv dpnv enumerantur 29°18 sqq.

évdeAexns 36°32 évdeAex@s 36%
\ : ‘a 4 > é b <

TO ov évexa ov montindy 24°14 ws
5é 70 ob Evera (alzidv éoriv) opp?
kat 70 «ldos 35°6

évepyeia 2729 — opp. duvdpe
27°234+ kar’ évépyeav opp.
duvdpe 18*20

éviautés 36°14

évoixeiv 16*6

evTeAEx Era 20°15, — peyéOous opp.
dpeyébns tAn 20°33 = ev TeAe ela
16°24; 17°26; 20°11+; 34°13
— opp. dvvdye 16°21; 17>17+;
20°13 + ; 20°26; 22°6+; 26531;
34°9 — bm’ évreAexelas 20” 21

évumdpxev 16°32; 20°34; 27%20;
31°4+5 34°33; 35%4+

évwos 28” 22

éfaipety Ta GAAdT pia 29°28 — 7d
ti qv elva Kal thy poppny 35°35
éfaipeOein 35%2

éfcévar 20° 12

(és) fers 2417+
Ta 7a0n 27°16

éfiordvas éavta THs picews 23°28
éfeardva Todovrov Ware... 25%20

ew Anpoxpirov 15*34

émrauveiy 3320

érapporepicayv 289

éravanodiaréov 17" 19

énldoois opp. peiwats 20° 30

émekas dvaia@nroy 1920

70 émixpatodoy év TH piger 21°35

émaAcimev 36° 1

énineda (Platonis in Timaeo) 1530+;
25526; 29%22+ — dd.aipera
25°33; 26°22 — els éwimeda diatpeiv

ai €eis coni.

16%2 Hexpe emcmédov Siarvoa
15°31 — Tmoetaba THY dvddvowv
29% 22

émmoAjs opp. tis Ba8os 30°17 Ta pa
TA émemoATs 15% 34

émotnun 18524; 27°18; 35°21+

émoThpov 18°35; 19*10+ 6 ém-
oThpov 35°22

70 émorntéy opp. 7d a&yvworov 18" 23

émTévar 22°15

émtipav 35°11

émxeitv 22%9

épyov 18°6; 21°1 érépas €pyov
éott Oewpias 34°15 ghoas (sc. 6
TlAdrwv) eivat troneipevdv Tt... olov
Xpuadv Tots Epyous Tots xpucois 29* 17

70 €xxatov mpos 7d Ktvovpevoy Kai THY
yéveow Opp. 76 mp@rov Kwodv 24% 28

70 éoxarov del Kiveiv KiVoUpevov 24° .

32 TO ws éoxaTov Kal amrépevoy
opp. ws dpx7 (moody) 24° 4, cf. > 27
et 24°33 éxeivo 6@ ov Tatra
(sc. oreypat kal ypappai) érxata 7
bAn 20°16 Ta €gxaTa 23%4+
eis & €xxata Siradvera oPP: éf ay
TMpwTov cvyKETUA25°Ig TAaesxXaTA
(in serie elementorum) 32°12

év érépos 16°18; 20°28; 29°27;
37°18 70 mavTed@s Erepov Kal 7d
pnOaph Tavrév 23°24 Ta éTEpa
kai diapépovta 23°12

70 ev Kal 70 dyabdv 33°19

evdiaiperos 28%24; 28°17

én’ evOeias 32°13 % «v0cia popa
37°7 eis €00U Opp. KUKAw 38%
6+; 38°11 evOvs (sc. ut quod
in promptu sit adferamus) 37°3

‘INDEX TO THE TEXT

evrAoyov 23°19; 24%9; 35%16 par-
Aov eVAoyov 15532 modAdebAoyw-
Tepoy 36*%20 evAdyws 26°26;
30°65 36°27; 38%17

evdproros 28%35; 2853+ 3 2931+ ;
34°35 70 evopiarw elvar 28” 2

evmropos 15°21

etpety 21°12

evpOapros 17*27

epeeps 17%9; 23°1 Op@pev 70
épetns dv nal jvdpevoy rdde pera
765 Wore pr Stadrelrev 37°35 Ta
epee fs (sc. Tav AmAGY awpdtwv) 31°

4+

(€proravat) wept rovTav émornoact
Oewpnréov 15°18 mept ovdevds
obdels éréarnaev 15%34

éxopnévy oTrypnotiypnsi17°3+ Kar’
éxopevnv orvypiv diaperdv 17%10
éxdpevov onpeiov onuetov 17* 11

(éois 30°27 +

(qv 18°25

Cnretv 21%2; 277 —Adyov 18*31
roy tpomov (nrovpev GAX’ ov Td
itoxeipevov 18%9 TO (nrovpevov
18>2

(nrnows 21*1

(ov 22°17; 35°32 — ¢Ga 388

nédtov pev AevKdv Spay xrdr. (citatur
ex Emped.) 14°20

ffdwos 15*103; 36°17; 383

TO jpéua Oeppdv 26°12
npena opp. opddpa 287
Hpépa 28"10

Hpewovons THs ovotas 14°13

1d pray
purTa

Oavpacev 33°16

Bavpaards 17°18

(Octv) ovvéxupoe Oéwr (cit. ex Emped.)
3 a

OepéAtos 37° 15+’

6 beds 36°32 7a ororxeta Siaxpiver
. 2 + } pirdia 7a pice mpdrepa Tod
Geov—Oeoi 5& zai tavra (Emped.
doctrina respicitur) 33°21

Oeppaivery 24*9+ 3 27%4+ Gep-
paivesOar 22°16; 24%17+324%24

7d Oeppavtindy 24°8

Beppdv—yuxpdv et éEnpdv-—iypév = mpa-
Ta évayTiwoeis KATA THY aphy 29°

18 sqq. Oepudv def. 29°26
— xwporéy 24°19 ~~ 7d Oeppdv
opp. Yuxpérns 18°16 ouTe yap

70 Oeppov AN TE YvXpP@ ove TovTo

7 Oepu@ 29°31 pGAAov Kai

HTrov Geppory Kat Yuxpdv 34°8 sqq.
Oepydv-yuxpévy enumerantur inter

285

qualitates quibus Empedoclis ele-
menta inter se differunt 14518+
Aéyee (Epm.) tov pev HAsov AevKdv
kai Oeppdv 15%10 §©tomov Td povov
dmodovvat TO Tepipeped oxHpaTt TO
Oepydv (reprehenditur Democritus)
26%5 Gepudrepov 26°10 TO
moAd bmepBadAov opp. TO Hpéepa
Oeppdv 26*12 Tepuker, ws pact,
TO pev Oeppov Siaxpivery 70 5e yoy poy
ouviatavar 36%3

Oeppdrns 26°7; 29°34; 30°26+ ;
32%12 ov yap % Oepporns pera-
BadrArAe Kal 4 Wuypdrns eis GAAnAa -
22°16

Oéors 22°33 + 5 23°54 — opp.
Tagis (TeV oxNLATwY, TaY GdiaLpéTwY

cwparwv)14*24; 159 af béces
25°14

Oewpeiy 32°35; 35°27; 35°20 Oew-
pho §=25°35; 27°30; 28>31_
— bdrov rt 23°18 = ewpnréov 15°
19; 17°32

Oewpia 34°35

Oyyave 26°33; 262; 27%2
(OvnoKev) TeOvewTos 21°31
OpaverOa 26* 26

Opus 16° 30

lar pen 24°35; 24°3; 28%22

iarpdés 24*30; 35°21

idios 20° 29 Anpoéxpttos mapa Tovs
dAXous idiws EXefe pdvos 23°10

iévat eis dmeipov opp. ariva 32°13 +
eis detpov iéva ént 70 KaTw 37°25

ixavés 18* 13 + 5 33223 35°313 35°9
dinndpynrat ixavas 21°11

ioaav 28%293 34°23

isos 16103; 20°23; 33%323 35°28;
3610+ maytt owpart TOY O-yKov
igov éora Kevdv 26°20 Taira
yap iod re mavra (cit. ex Emped.)
33°20 7d tcov dist. 1rd Spoor
33*30

(ioravat) orfiva 32°12

(kaftordva) TavTov KabéoTrnKe 14*14

Kadodov 1712; 23%22; 36%13 —opp.
Kad’ €xacrov 31*20 TO KadAov
22°%16+ —xalrd mavta meptéxov
yy 7a xaOddov opp. Ta Kad’
éxaora 3 5 ® 28

kateoOu 27°11; 31°26

(xadeiaOa) Kadovpévn andi yéveots
14°7 peraBoAn Kara péyebos, 7
Kadovpévn avfnots kal pOiows 14°14
Ta Kadovpeva otoxeia 221; 28°
31; 29°16

éx pt) Kadod 17° 5 Ta. KaAG Opp. Ta

286 INDEX TO

pavdpeva da ovvnPevay §=25* 21
: KaA@S Exel Aye a9*6
KapveEP opp. byaive ats 347 5; 19
13 TO Kapvov 24°18
kamvos 31°25 +
KaTacKevdtey a4” 153 5*26
Karexew rémoy 20°1
xaryyopla TIS wal eidos opp. OTE pots
18°16 TO mpi ov Kad éxdorny
Karnyopiay Tov évros 17°6 ‘ai
Karnyopiat 17" 9; 19°
Kar Tit Epos 28>8+
aro (xivetoOar) 33°28 + — ws
én TaY toomévan 38°8 TO KATO
ri ga 70 dvw 23*7 éml 70 KATH
Ta KaTw Tov II opp. Ta
ge 33°14
Ta KatwOev opp. Ta dvwOev (Tod IT)
33°15
TO KavoTév 22°11
wevés 21153 25°5 +3 25°9+ 3 26°
I5+ kevov Coni. cpa ove ai-
oOnT Ov 202 — xwpiordéy 21*6
KEVOU [An OvTOS ev Tots ddiaipérors 26%
a4 70 kevdv 20°27; 2594432534
—i.g. xhpa_owparos 26? 19 dua
Tov Kevovd 26%2 — nal da THs
ahs 25°31
(wepavvivat) 70 mpabey 28°12
Knpos 27 °145 34°32
TO Kwveiv Kal KiveioOa Comp. TO ToLEiv
kal pws Ker 24* 25sqq. 70 voor
2157+ 3 26° 33 3 37°17. —comp.
TO To.ovv 23°12 sqq. — bxas
A€yerar 24°26 — mpwrov kat
aitiov THs Kuvnoews 34°7 To dia
TO ouvex@s KivetcOa TaAAQ K.WodV
18°7 TO mp@ToV KLVOUY Opp. TO
éryarov 24%30 —dkivntoy 24”
12, cf. 37*19 Ta KwvovvTa (=
Empedoclis. gidAia Kat veikos) dist.
Ta cwpariKd (sc. oroxeta) 14°17
TO kara vow wereiobat (opp. Big kat
mapa vow) 33°30 Kevou pevau
(o71ypai) 166 ) ovata 7% KwWov-

b

pévn 38°14 TO Kivovpevov 23%
I3+; 37° 26+ TO KUKA® KIVOU-
pevov 38 I Td TUVEXaS KWovpeva

KaTa yeveow fh ddAoiwaw 7 Sdrws
peraBodty 37* 34

kivnots AB? #28; 23°18; 24%27—25*
273 33°22+3; 34°8+;
37°33; 382 + —opp. port 33° 35
h Kir Kivnots 37°24 ; (coni. yeve-
os) 38°15; (coni. TOU obparou)
38°18 Kara piow kivnots 33°32
Hy) Kata Tiy popay kivnots 36°15 4
Taw mopav Kivnots 26°7 ~— tp apxt)
Ths Kunoews 18%2; 2156; 24°27;

36° 17—

THE TEXT

24°14 KUAgEL dixivnrov 24°31
peraBaddovra did THY -Kivynow -yivor-
Tat yh Kai mup (secundum Empedo-
clem)15%22 =v Tois mepi xuwnoews
Adyos 18°3 wwhoes 381 ai
év KUKAw KWWHoELS 37%20
de causa efficiente generationis et

corruptionis 36*15 sqq.: vide etiam
S. Vv. popa de causa continuitatis
motus 37°17 sqq. Empedoclis
doctrina de mota examinatur 33°
22 Sqq-

KLVNTLKOS a3*1 2+ 3 35°28

Kwytés 23%12 +

kdivn 35°33

Kvnun 21°31 ;

wowvés 205233 a1*r4; 28%3r; ga*
18; 34°24

6 kbo pos 34°6

KOTUAN 33° 22+

Kovpos 29* II; 29” Ig +
coni. mvp 19° 31

kouporns 23°93 26*8

Kpaots coni. pigis, opp. avvOecrs 28*8

TO Kparoby 28°26 +° KparetaOat
31 *28+

apatper opp. yAloxpov 29°20+ — def.
30°6

xpibas pent Gas mupois 28% 2

kpaTaddos 25°21 ; 30° 26+

Kbnrm 37°I+ 5 38°11 + ; 38 1+
— opp. eis e008 38°6 + } Kbnhy
popa opp. } €v0eta popa. 378 7 év
Kourp 37%20 kara tov Aofov
KUKov 308 32

Kupins 14% 10; 17°33; 92” 23+; a6
28 H ‘eupuarrtpa aitia 35° 34
kupiwratov 24°27 pdad.oTa Kupios
20%2

Kwopodia 15°15

~“

TO Kovpov

AapBav ew 35°28; 388 Antréov
20°34; 21°16

AavOavay 17°1 +

AcaivecOar 36*%1I0

A€yeoOar duporépas 17°17 =—moa-
Aax@s 22° 30 -= TAcovax as ai
12 Tovrou Suxa@s évdexopévou Aé-
yew 20°32

Aciov opp. TpAXY 29” 20

AcimeoBat 3116+ 3 3476 = TH Ae-
mopevey Tpomw 36> 31

Aerropepyns 30*1

Aemrév opp. maxed 2920+ — def..
30°1 AewTorepor ged 22

Aeveimmos 14°12; 25%23; 25°6+
— coni. "EuredoxAjs, “Avagarydpas
14°12 — coni. Anpdxpiros 14%
18+ ; 1596+ ; 25°12

Pn a eee Ee ee ee

& das te et

ee ee

agile ak

INDEX TO

Leucippi doctrina exponitur 25% 23
sqq.; comp. cum Emped. doctrina
25°6 sqq.; dist. a Platonis doctrina
25°25 sqq. _ vide etiam s.v. Ay-
poxpiTos

Aeveds 15*103 1754; 23°27; 32°
20+ ; 33%29 =. 7d Aeuedv 27°16 4
— kal 7d Oeppdv = 140n Kal” Boor
GAAoovTa pdvoy 23%1g AEvedy—
péday enumerantur inter qualitates
quibus Empedoclis elementa inter
se differunt 14°19 +

Aevadtys 2325+ 3 29°11; 32°17

Anon 34°12

AiBos 34° 1 AlBor 34% 28

of AoyiKas (Opp. PvaiKws) oKoTodTES
16°11

Adyos = definitio 14*3; 17°14 6
Adyos 6 THs Exdorov ovoias 35°7
kata Tov Adyov opp. KaTa THY VAnv
17%24 T® Adyw opp. TH apOpq
(eis) 20°14 — opp. TOmw (xwpior?
tAn) 20°24 — diapépew 22°24

Adyos = ratio mathematica 28%9;
33°34; 33°11 + 5 34°15

Ad-yos = argumentum, ratiocinatio 25 *
133 27°16 9. ay>y 5 Adyos 5in-
mope 27°27 6 dvayKdater Soxav
Ad-yos 17*1 Adyo dvaykacrikol
kal ove evmopo siadvev 15°21
oixelous Kat pvoikois Ad-yous TemetoOan
16°13 _&& Tav modAdAGY dAdywr
abewpntoa trav jmapxdvrew syTes
16*8 t@Adyw (Opp. TH aigOjoer)
deodrovbeiv 25% 14 éml TeV Ad-youv
opp. émi tav mpayparwr 25°18

db avros Adyos 14°25; 162; 24%24;
32°19; 32%9 of nap” Hy@y Ad-you
36°17 Aevaimmos éxev @nOn
Adyous 25%23 mépt mavTwy évi
Adyw Simpixace 25%1 owlev TO
Adyw 21°18 (nret yap Tiva TOUTO
Adyov 18*31 év Tos mpdrepov
Adyors 25°34 of ev apy Adyar
37% 25 évy Trois mept Kivioews
Adyos 18% 4 brevayTio: GAAHAOLS
Adyor 232 oixetos 6 Ad-yos abTav
TH brodéca ota pavart4?g Kara
Adyov 24°14; 30224

Aondév 16%24; 1625; 20°98; 28°31
Ta Aoita Kat Bio aiuBora 32°29

Aofds KdKXos 36% 32

TO Avyret 8 od6ev peprypévov 28415

Avew 16°18 AdecOac 2710 Avera
76 el5os 28°27

6 AvTav 23°33

Avow ebpety 21°12

Ta padnparika 23°1 |

THE TEXT 284

of pavdpevor 25% 20

paxphot Kard xOdva bvero pitas (cit.
ex Emped.) 34°5 = paxp@ adrn-
Béaratov 29* 20

padakéy (opp. oxAnpdv) 26%13+ ;
29°19 + — def. 30%8 pada-
«év—oxAnpdv enumerantur inter qua-
litates quibus Empedoclis elementa
inter se differunt 14°19 + pada-
KOs 33°25

padakdrns 26*8

6 pavOdvew 18%34
19"9

uavia 25* 19+

70 pavov Kai 7d tuKvév 30°11 pavé-
TEpa Opp. wuKvoTepa yiverOar 26% 23

pavwors 30°10

Paprupeiy 35% 2

paraov 262

paxecOar 15*16

péyeOos 1527+ ; 16%24+ 3 16°14;
20°23——21>16; 25522; 26°17;
27*8 — coni. c@pa 16°15+;
20%30+ peyéOous bAn 21°7
petaBodr Kara péyeOos 14°14, mepi
péyeOos 20°14+ peyebn ddiaipera
15273; (coni. ow@para) 16°16
— dropa 16*12; 16°32; 17%1
— dinpnpéva 23°5 + éx pn perye-
Oey 1

TA peOexTixa TaV cidav 35°12 +

peQordvat 28°34 peBicracba 30%9

Hé0050s 27* 31

pelwois opp. émidoais 20” 31

pedavia 29°12; 32°17

péAas opp. Aeveds 14°19+; 23°27;
32°21 +

péddrew 32°31; 37°64
dist. 7d gota 37°4

péevey 14°33; 20%21+3 21%25+ ;
32°27; 32°20 — éy TH abot

- xwpe 37°11 — & xwpa TETAy-
pevn 37°14 |

pépos 14°20; 21%3; 2122; 23°18;
28%5 +5; 34°31+; 34°2 xara
pépos Siarpeiv 1630 ©=—. 4 kaa pépos
opp. # amAF yéveots 17°35

péaos 30°17 + 3 32°7+ TO pécov
= medium inter contraria 32°35;
34>27 (cf. °28 7d péoor roAd Kal
ove ddiaiperov) = centrum uni-
versi 76 mpds 7d pécov (opp. 7d mpds
tov Spov) pepdpevov 30°33; 6 mepi
TO pécov témos 35%25; cfd Tov
péaov (sc. owparos) rémos 34°31

pécov Tt Gépos Kat UdarTos 7) Gépos Kai
mupds 32°21 (2cf.*35) «ard pécor
btaiperdv 17* 10, cf. 16%20 ©
kara. peadtnTra 34°29

TO pavOdvov

TO pedrAE

288 INDEX TO

peraBaddAav éx Todde eis T65€ SAOV 17%
21,ef.19"14 —xatadrdmov, kar’
avfnaw Kal pOiow, Kar’ dddoiwow
14°27 — Tots nd0eow 15°14, cf.
r5>i8etig?Ir —xarard 7a6y
kat Tas Suvdpes 37%2 — &a rH
kivnow 15%22 Ta petaBaddAovTa
Kara piaw 28°27

peréBacis 31°24; 31°13+3 32%2
# eis GAAnAa peraBaots 37°11

peraBAntikds 19% 20

peraBorn 15°2; 17%23+; 18%25;
18530; 1957+; 20%4+; 29%8;
gi*iz; 31°34; 32°22+3; 33°
10; 36%19; 3622 —xaTdyéveow
}) ddAolwow 7) bAws 37°35 —KaTa
péyeOos 14°14 — t &x TOVEE eis
705 (Opp. % mEept peéeyeBos et Tepi
maOos) 20°12 év T@ ovve-
xet petaBodn 17*19 pera-
Bodh ths évavtiwaews 19°31 t)
peraBoAr eis TavavTia 32°73 32°22
ai peraBoAal Tod ovyKetpevov 15°11

peraxweiv15°35 peraniveicOa15”13

peTadnyis opp. droBoAn (sc. rav el5@v)
35°14

Ta peTadAevdpeva 26" 35

peragv coni. kody 28°31 — opp.
tov évavtiov Exarepov 34°13, Ta
peragd 30°14; 33711 —opp.7a
évavtia 248, cf. 19°12 Ta
peragd avTav (sc. Tav ’EumedoxdAéous
orepeav) Kevd 25°10 dépa
ribevTes 7) TOP H TL peragd TovTwY
28°35

peracxnpaticey 35°26

peraraxbev 29" 19

peratedév 27°19

Kata perapopay 24°15

perpety 21°24 perpetoOa 33°21 +;
36°13

pérpov 21°24; 36°15 Te Tov TOGO
pétpw opp. Kar’ dvadoyiay (oup-
BadrrdAcoOa) 33*27

péxpt emmédwv 15°31; 29%22 — Tov
16°32 — Tay oto xeiwy 25"20

piypa 30°17 70 avvodov piypa
212 TO plypa Tovro (sc. Em-
pedoclis) 34%28 = plypata 30°15

peryvivat olvoy vbaTt 21°33 (cf. 22%9)
pigayres dpdev 35%14 plyvvoba,
puxO7vat (absolute) 2224; 24°34;
33°16 puxOévros tivds dist. nad’
avrdé peraBaddAovTos 27% 25 pe-
puypéva opp. €iAuepwvéotata 30°34
bidAAagis Te puyévTwy (cit. ex Em-
ped.) 14°8; 33°14 5d 70 puc-
wipeva pOcipe Tas imEpoxas GAAN-
Awy 34? 11

THE TEXT

Ta puyvipevd 275+ 7d puxOévra
27°14; 28%2 7dpuxbév 22%10;
28°10; 28>4%7

eis puxpa Kal éarTw (Sidxprots) 17*16
puxpa puxkpois taparidéueva 28%33
kara punpa 28%7 +3 34%29 juuxpov
éx peyadou (yiveoOa) 17°35 pu-
Kpov Empuryvupevov 15°13

TO piKpopepes 30% 2

dia puxpdrnra (ddparo: mépo) 24°31,
cf. 25%30

puxrés opp. dmAods 30922 = ypukerov =
mistum 28%4; 34°14 = miscibile
27Por; 289313 2851+ ~«—def.

28°20 =. rd puerév = miscibile 27%
32; 27°8; 28P22+ TA pKa
owpara = corpora mista 34°31

pigis 15°43 211; 22°84 5 27%30—
28526; 33°19; 34°19 = —coni.
Kpaois 28%9, dist. cvvOeots 28°6 +
pigis re SidAAagis Te pwyéevTwv (cit.
ex Emped.) 1458; 33°14 }
pigis = Tv urT@v dadAowbevTwv
évwois 2822 mept pigews 27%
3° Sqq-

pipetoOa 37°34

pynpn 34°12

povh opp. Kivnots 33°35

povovoba 32°24

péves 20°11

poptoyv 20%21; 212043 2841+
Oarepov pdptov (évayTiwoews) 32°11
Ta popia 27°12

poppy coni. 7400s 20°17
TAHVos Kal Tas poppas 14*23 tT]
pHopoy coni. 7d eldos 35°16+4+ ;
35°6 — coni. 76 Ti Fv eivar
35°35 — opp. % tAn 36°
14 @s popph (sc. dpxq) opp.
ds tAn 5*30 év BAN Exew TH
poppnv 24°5 mept THs Ans Kat
THS popoys TaV yevnTav Kat pbapTayv
exponitur 35% 28 sqq.

povorkn 19° 27

Hovoikds opp. dpovoos 1925+; 34°
II

puerds 14°20; 34°25

pupidxis 16% 22

70 veixos (Empedoclis) 15%7 — opp.
h pirdia 15°17 3 33°12+ 3 34%1 +
émi Tov veixous viv Opp. TpdTEpov em
THs pirdias 34°6, cf. 15*6 sqq.

védos 38° 7 +

vonoa 21°24

vopitew 18°25

fetv 36*10
énpov 22%2+4 5 29>19—31°33; 32°

ag ;
dmreipa TO

INDEX TO

26; 34929 = = def ag as 70
énpév opp. 7d bypéy et 7d Srepdv 30%
13 TO TEA€ws Enpdv 30°47 TO
mpwros Enpdv 30% 20 énpov—tbypov
et Oeppdv—puypdév = mp@rar évayTi-
ges Kata rhv apnv 29°19 sqq.
énpév—éypév enumerantur inter quali-
tates quibus Empedoclis elementa
inter se differunt 14°19

Enporns 32°18 +

EvAov 16° 10+ 3 35°33
I5+

fvrAa 22%

Oykos 21°11; 26°31; 2715; 28%5
mavTi owpat. Tov byKov icov éora
keviv 26°20 ddialpera rovs oy-
kous 27% 21 bid opixpdtnTa THY
dyKoV 25%30

686s 183 + 689 24°35

oleaat 159; ¥7% 22; 18%273:29*30;

oixetos 149; 29°31 — opp. da-
AdTptos 30% 21 TY oikelayv pwviy
hryvénoev ’Avagaydpas 14°13
oixetos Tém0s 34°34 oikeia xwpa
37*9 oixeiows Kal puoikois Ad-yots
memetoOm 16°13

oixia 37°15 +

olvos 21%33—22%31; 24%30; 28427

mpos dAtya BAépayTes 16*9

Sdov peraBddrAew 17°22; 19°14
— ddrou drrecOa 30%2 | —ddAdAdr-
TeV TOTOV 20% 20 OAov Tt Oewpij-
ga opp. pépos tt A€yev 23°17
7d SAov opp. Td pépioy, Ta pdpia 20%

23; 28%9 76 dAov (rerum univer-
sitas) 25*9+ ; 36°32 1 Tov SAov
popa 363 =ddaws 17°11; 19°18;

a0%1; 20°30; 24°%2+;. 26°28;
27°6 ; 37°35
duBpos (cit. ex Emped.) 14°21
dpoyerns 20°19; 33°34 Todporyeres
id Tod dpoyevods (wépure maT KEW)
24*1 1d dpoyerR 23°30; 29°26
dpoedhs dist. dpoyerns 20” 20
dpotopepns 28%4+ Ta dpowpeph
22% 19 — opp. Ta dvopoopeph
21°18+ TQ Sporopeph oroxeia
ridnow (Avagaydpas) 14% 19, def.14*
20 — dmha cal orotxeta 14% 28
dpoov coni. 7d airéd 23°11+ ; 24°6
— opp. 76 airéd 30°24 = Fd. Suroncov
(ra Spo) 234+ — dist. 7d
igov 33%30 — dpoiw avfavera
22%3 mpoodvros avfdvovra To
dpoiw 15°3 dpoiws 14%2; 18%
26; 236; 35%26.
dpotovv 24*10
dpodoyetv 25% 25
2254

mpos Thy alaOnow

THE TEXT 289

dpodroyotpeva 25%24 dpororyou-
pévn TH alcOnoe % Tod mupds yéveats
31°24 dpodoyovpeva Tois map’
huav Adyos 36°16 dpodoyou-
pévos 25°14

dpovontikas A€yovow 23°3

bpod elvat 27020

dpdpvados 29” 30 Ta dpdpvda opp.
Ta Diasenis 29°28 £4 4

mpods dpavupov ro yuxtdvy 2821
dpovipws A€yerOa opp. OaTEpa amd
Tay érépwv Kal rev mpoTépwy 22°31

dverpwrrev 35°8

dvopa 14%6; 22°30

én Tots dvopacera: (cit. ex Emped.)

3.15

o¢d Brera 28%15

SmnAtkovodv 168; 2618

dpav 14°13; 16%10; 18%23; 24°28;
27°16; 36°173 37°35 HEeALov
pev AevKdv dpay (cit. ex Emped.)
14°21 dpacOa 24°29; 27°17;
3a"

Ta Spyava 36% 9 +

dpyavinds 36* 2

dpeyerOar 36° 28

dpiCecOar 17%18; 33°8; 3325 det
dpiec@a (= definitum esse) 76 ovv-
derov 34°34

pos 29°31 + mpos Tov Spoy (opp.
mpos TO pécov) pépecbat 30°32; 35% -
20 % popp? «al 7d eidos dmavTwy
év Tois Spos 35% 21

doToov 14%19+; 21°19+3; 22°19;
33°93; 34°30 dard 15°31; 34°
21; 34 25

7} TOU ovpavow (Kivnots) 38*19

ovota = substantia 14°14; 18°35;
21°34; 3814+ —coni. 7d rdde
17>9g+ —coni. réde 7 1732, cf.
1 >rsetig*13 Suvdpe Ts ovoia,
évredexela St ob 17°24, cf. 20°13
ws évdéxerar ovciay obcia évaytiav
elvar 35°6 —ovolas yéveots Kat Tov
rovde Opp. Tod ToLodde Kal Tocovde
kat mov 17°21 ovoias éorat
yéveots Ex pi) ovolas 17°8 év
ovaia opp. év TH TaA@ 19*15 ai
ovota17>11+;19%18+ aif pice
ouvecracat ovoia 28°33

ovoia % Exdorou ( = } Exdorov pvats,
essentia rei) 33°14 6 Adyos 6
Ths éxdorov ovaias 35°7
éyytrara elva THis ovaias 36°33
dys (mpdrepoy apys) 29°14
na0jpara 15°18; 26%21

nadnpara 31% 3
madnrixds 235 ; 2410+; 2693; 28%

Ta é€vaytia

290 INDEX TO

I9+; 28°1+3; 29526 mabnrixa
Kal mownTika 23%9; 24*7; 28%20+;
2921+ TOU taOyrixod pr€Bes
26°35

mados 16°43; 16513; 1924+; 20°
23; a*%263 23°18; 26%2; 29°15;

37°27 + — nad’ aird 19°27;
(opp. 76 ri ore) 21°3 — 7) ovp-
BeBnkds SAws 20%1 389° — evavTiw-

gews tg” 21 — opp. 76 trorel-
pevoy 19°8 — coni. poppy 20°
17 — dvev bans 28°12 eid0s
Tt xwpiorov 7) 7400s 16°3 mados
5é Kad’ Saov GAAoLOvTAL pdvov 23°19,
cf.14?17 7 wept 7d00s (ueTaBoAn)
20°14 kata 70 ma00s Kal 70
toby (peraBodn) 19°33
ra 746 26%19; 26°47; 34%13 —coni.
Siapopat 15%9+ — coni. ai
éfers 27916 = Ta TeV dmTav TAOn
31°10 = Tav Taba OBEY xuwproTdv
ay>a2, ch. 17°11 + et 20°35 “rels
madeo. peraBadrAew 15°15 év
Tois ma0ect Kat xara ovpBeBnkds
(ueraBodn) 17*26,cf. 19°11 Kara
Ta 740n Kal Tas Suvvdpes (ueTaBad-
Aewv) 37%2 es :
Tépray npéua (madntindv) 28°6
TAapTAHpES 25% 29
TO mavdexés (in Platonis Timaeo) 29%
14
TavoTeppia 14% 29
TravTEed@s 3410
(mapadapBdavey) mapeAnpapey Tapa
Tav mpoTepov 23° 1
mapadeimeyv 35>3
mapadroyt(dpevos (6 Adyos) 17%1
mapamAno.ov 25*19
rrapaTidecbat 28* 33
mrapexBhvar 25°36
Tlappevidns duos terminos peraBoAjs
statuit, mip xal yhv 18°6, cf. 30°14
napddvres coni. imepBavtes THY aigOn-
ow 25°14
To may (totum corpus) 1629+; 26°9
= 6 ovpavds, 6 Kkdopos 14°8; 18%
18-5 25% 7 + —(omnino) 15*
19
TO mao XOv Opp. TO ToLodv 23°18; 23°
12+; 24%4+ oriypal 7 adal
Todt mabovca 164 70 yAlox pov
iypov metrovOds Ti oT 30% 5
TaTnp 38” 10
Taxv¥ opp. Aerrdv 29” 20 +
TOU énpov (€a7t) 30% 4
32%22
(weiOew) wereicOau 16°13
mreipacOar 35%14 meipatéov 15°24;
16°18

TO TAaxXv
TAXUTEPOV

THE TEXT

mepaivey intrans. 25°16 memepacpé-
vos Opp. dretpos 18°18, cf. 38%10

TO mépas mepaivew dv mpds 7d Kevdv
25°15 mépas éxew 3845 Ta,
népas €xovra:37° 30

70 mept 8 20°11

meplepyov 26°8 +

(weptépxeOm) KvKAw TEpreAnrdvOévat

a

TO meptéxov coni. 7d dmeipoy 32%25

TO KaOddov Kal 7d ndvra Tepéxov

ry

trepiodos 36°13 +

mepiTr€KOpeva yevvay 25434

mepipepns 26% 4

(mnywova) mennyds opp. bypdv 27%
17+ — coni. oxAnpdév 27%21 +

‘70 memnyds Opp. TO bypdv 30°14 +

oxdnpov yap éore Td memes, TO 52
mennyos Enpdov 30°11 wenn yevan
du’ EdAAeubiy bypdtnTos 30°%7

mds 37°15

mets 30° 24 +

mkpoTns 2912

mTAaTOS 27°%8

(mAarrew) metdAacpéevm tii Todr’
éorwévar 25% 10

TlAdrov 15*29; 2525+; 30°16; 32%
29 —Citatur 29*15 sqq. Pla-
tonis Timaeus respicitur 1530; 25°
24; 29°13; 30°16; 32%29_ eius
doctrina de indivisibilibus planis
reprehenditur 15°30 sqq.; 29%2-
24 eius doctrina dist. a doctrina
Leucippi 25°25 sqq.

TA€ovaXas 30% 12

mrHO0s 25°35; 30°97
mAHO0s 1422; 25%30
Tay dvTwY 25%2

ameipa TO
70 TAHGOS

~ mAnpns 25°11; iebiats

mAnpovaba 268

mAnoatev 24>8

76 mAnoloy (o@pa) 37*12'

mrivOos 34° 1 TAWO0 34% 20+

mvedpa 21°9 = =—coni. dnp 18>2

mov Kai mdcxev dAdAnNAG 23 7
moeiv Tt GAANAG 23°13, cf. 29°22
TO pev THE TO Se mao KEL TAS PvotKas
momoes 15°25 peilov moeiv 16%
31 péyeOos troety 16% 33 mp
Toijoa. 22°) wept TOU moLeiv
kai maoxev 23°1% sqq. TO TroLeiv
kal maoxev comp. TO KiwetcOa Kat
Kweiv 24%25 sqq. ~~ TO moveiv Kal
nmacxev, mas evdéxera cvpBaivev
24°25—27%29 morveioOa THY ava-
Avow 29%22

TO mowdvy 23%15—24>16; 3527
70 mp@rov (moovv) opp. 7d éoxXarov

INDEX TO THE TEXT

24°33 TO mpwrov To.ovy dmabés
24>13 70 moody e€oxaroy Kal
kupwmratoy 24°27 Ta movovvTa
28°32 — kal nadcxovra 24°33

moinots 22°13+3; 24°32 ai pvoial
momoes 15°6

mointiKds 23% 10—2415; 26%2; 284
19+; 28°21; ag2r+ core
5e 70 montixdy airiov ds bOev % apy)
Ths kwhoews 24°13 = Ta@Y moNnTiKaY
dist. dca év bAn et Boa pr ev VAn
éxet THY poppHy, quorum illa wa6n-
mika, haec autem dma67 sunt 24°
4 sqq-

rowdy dist. moody, mo 1710+ — dist.
tl, moadv, mov 18*15 év TO
opp. é€v T@ moo@ 33°29 év T@
ToL® Opp. &v ovaia 19*16 KaTa

70 , nafs kai 70 tov (peTraBodrn)
I 3

feok nse A€yeoOat 22” 30

Ta TOAAG Opp. TO & 15%20 Ta
GAnOMs TOAAG Opp. TO KaT’ ddAnOecav
év 25°36 = add. T0 Tpiywvov moAAA
€orae 16°12 oi moAAol 18°19
of mAcioTar 23°3 él ToAd ovvei-

pew 16*7 ws émt rd TOAD 23% 25;
33°5+ ém mAciov i714 én
mreiw Témov 20°24 mAeioroy 15
28

mépo 24>26+ 3; 2552+; 2627+
dia rev mépwv Sudv Opp. Kara TH
dpny (moeiv) 26" 22

moody 16%*30 — dist. moidv, rot
17?10+ — dist. ri, mordv, rod
18°16, cf. 19%12 70 toady,
mogov TO Ka0ddov opp. moddy Tt,

odpt moon 22°16 sqq. évy TO
T00@ Opp. év TAD 33°30 §=xarda rd
woody (ueraBoAn) 19°31 — (oup-
Banta) 33% 20 sqq.

TOTEpws 20°29 +

ov dist. moody, moby 1727 — dist.
ti, woody, mov 18*16 | —coni.

7d rodvie, Toodvde opp. Td Td5€
1742 TO Tov dist. moby, moody
ie, Eh

TO Tpaypa @ cvpBéBnke opp. TO mwados

37%29 Ta mpdypata 15%33;
29*%5; 36°24 —opp.adroi 18”
26 — opp. Ta 140 Kai ai Efers

27>1¥ én Trav mparypatov opp.
émt tav Adywr 25°18

mpayparevréov 17°34

mpiev 36*10

tpiav 36°8

mpotevat 16°14

mpooayev opp. anayev (70 yevyntixdv)
36°17

291

mpocayopeverOat 29% 20
mpooryivecdar 15°16; 21°26

. mpoceivar 35°7

mpocépxecOat 21°27 +; 22%12 +3 368

mpdadeots 27%24 kara mpdcbeow
3371

mpooewpeiv 36%12

mpooréva 36" 3 + mpoordyros avgd-
vovra T@ dpoiy 153 — mpoordvTos
Tivos abfdveoOa opp. admédvros piivey
21% 4 (cf. *21, 27); 21°13 mpoo-
LdvTos pev TOV HAiov yévecis éaTiv,
dmévros 5t pbicts 36°17 70 mpoa-
dv 22% 26

Tpookdnre yap TodAois 26%27

mpooridecbar 21%30; 332
TOU mpooTiWEepEevou 33°*6

Tpooumapyxev 35°31

of mpdrepa 35% 18 of mpdrepov 23° 2
évy Tots mpdtepoy Adyos 25°34
mpotepa Thy iow 15%25 Ta
vce: mpdTepa Tod Geo 33° 21 7H
guoe mpdrepoy 29°16 de neces-
sitatis nexu inter 7d mpérepov et 7d
borepoy 37°14 sqq.; 38°12

(mporiOévar) Ta mpoTebévta ef apxns
27431

mpouTapxew 17°17 +

TO mpaTov Kad’ ExdoTny KaTnyopiay Tov
évros 176 — Sraopa mpwrn 23%
mparat Siapopal Kai évayTiwoeis 29
17, cf. 30°25 VAN mpwTn 29%
23 of mp@rot pirogopnaartes 17” 30

Ta mp@Ta = Ta alia 35%32 (cf. *29)

= dpxal kal oroxeia 29%5 (cf. 15”
26) Ta mp@ra Trav cwparwr 25°17
=é@f dv mpwrov ovyreTra Kal
eis & é€oxyata daddvera: 25°18
KaTa Tov év Tois mpwros Siopiopdv
34? ar mp@rov = omnino 22°25
TO mpwrws ~npdv 30*19 70
mp@Tov Kwovv, moody vide s.vv.
Kuvely, Tovey

TO muKvév opp. 7d pavdv 30°12
(mépor) muvol kal Kata orotxov 24”
31 mukvorepa yiverOat 26% 23

muxvwoe. kal pavwoe TaAAA ~yevveat
30°10

mip 1853+; 1915+; 20°20+;
22*10+; 2358; 24%9; 25%20;
27*4+; 27°11 +; 28°35-——29"27;
30°2—35*19; 36°7+ 5; 37°5+
— coni. 7d xovpov I9*31 —coni.
tiwp kal Ta ToLatTa 29°35 70
mip éxe év tAy 7d Oeppdv 24%19

pera

— Oepyov kat Enpdy 303 +=—Oep-
pov paddor 7 Enpod 31°*5 = brep-
Bod? Oeppdrnros 30°25 sqq. —et

vdwp contraria sunt 31°I; 35°5

U2

292 INDEX TO THE TEXT

— xeipov 7) Ta dpyava (wel) 36% 12
— pdvov éort kat padtota Tov eldous
did 7d mepuxévar pépecOar mpos Tov
Spov 35°19 = eVAoyov 70 pdvov TaY
dmA@v awpydtav TpépecOar 7d Tip
g6*27 gaivera: Kal 7d mvp abo
kivovpevov Kal macxov 36°7
76 mip = Empedoclis elementum 14°

26—15%22; 25523; 3351+ up
kat yj = Parmenidis orotxeia 18°
73 30°14

Tupapis 34°33

mupivos 26°31

mupoedns 30° 24

mupds 33°8 + mupot 28% 3

év TO mds Siahépew 151

pryadéos (cit. ex Emped.) 14° 22
pitas (cit. ex Emped.) 34°5

odpt 14*I9+ 3 21%20—22%28; 34°
25+3 345+ — Toon 22%20+
oapxes 15°31; 34%20; 34°25
onpatvey 1796; 1851+; I9*12+ ;
33°29
onpeiov 17811 — aicOnrov 21°14
kad’ ériobv onmetov 1611+ Kata
mav onuetov 16°31
oirtov 24°3
axes 38°12
okAnpov 14°19 + 3 20°21 + 3 26%3+;
29°19 + — coni. mennyds 27%
41:4 5.30713 Thy 5& ynv Bapv
kal oxdAnpdv (Aéyee *Epumedoxdjs)
reat vide etiam s. v. wadaxdv
oxAnpotns 26°8
okorely puatk@s Opp. AoyiK@s 16°11
did opixpétnta Tov byKkav (adpata)
25%30, cf. 24>31
oTadaypos oivov 28% 27
(orepelv) 7d éorepnuévov TadTns 30°
18 +
aTepeds 29% 22 oreped 16°3; 25°
5+ ; 26%22 mept Tov adiarpeTov
OTEpEeay 2 5 35 sqq.
orépnots 18°17 — TO €repov Tov
évayTiov 32% 23
ony 17%3+ 3 20°15 — coni.
onpetov 17*12 Tapa Tv apny Kal
Ti diaipeow Kat Thy otvypny 16°7
dxivyror } xvovpeva al arvypai 16°6
oTrypat 7 dpat Todt mabovcm 16°4
ée orvypav 16427 + ; 16°27 éé
apay fh orivypav 16915; 17*7
oraxeloy I5%1+ 3 2523; 29°13
oraxeiat4*i5+; 3098 —coni.
dpxai 29*5 dsapopal Tov oTa-
xeteow 14518 TacToxeia (= anp,
Vii, Wop, DBwp) 29*15 +; 29°23; 31°

143 33°12; 34°17+ —(i.g. Oep-
pov, puxpdy, KTA.) 3073043; 31°27
— opp. Ta &« Tav aroxelwy 22°6,
cf. 34%10 — TeV dwpaTov 33*
17, ch 34°16 Ta Kadovpeva
oroxeia 22°23; 2831; 29916 +

7a oroxeia Empedoclis 14%16—15*%
253 25° 20(cf.29%3); 33°19; 33°20
— quomodo moventur 33°22 sqq.
Twept yevécews THs TY TTOLXELwWY
éoxéparo TlAdtav 15%31, cf. 29%
13 sqq. ms ék TaV OTOLXElwY
ésovra odpkes Kal d07a KTA. 34%20
sqq- 3 34°16 sqq.

oToxewdécTtepa coni. mpdtepa Ti
puow 15*24

Kara orotxov 2431

orpoyyvaos 19°13

Ta ovyyev Opp. TA pr) Spdpuda a9? 30

ovyxecoOa 14*%22; 16%27+ 3 21°18

25°19; 34°30; 34°32 70 avy-
keipevov 15°12
avykpacis 36° 21
avykpive 29°26 + ovykpivecOa

155173 17%27 +3 225103 a9%3

ovykpiots opp. diaxpiots 17°13; 227;
29°73 33°22 — & édarrévev
17°16 ovyxpios pigts 22°8
utrum ovyxpiots H yéveots 15,” 208qq.;
cl. 17% 35 avykploe opp. d:axpi-
vee 158; 16°34; 17%18+

(ovyxupety) ovvéxvpoe Oday (cit. ex
Emped.) 34°3 |

ai auledgers 30°31 +

ai sulvyia 32°3

(ovdAapBavev) cuverAnupevn TH LAN H
poppn Kal 70 ef5os 35°15

7a cupBaivovta 261 aos ovpBe-
Bnkos 6Aws 20°11 =a oupBeBnkds
23°27 —opp.«aé@ airé 20°5 +
— coni. év Tots mabect (sc. weraBoAn)
17*26

ovupBardA€o8at 33°27

aupBaAnros 33°19 +

ovpBodrov 32°32
31°43 32°29

ovppevev 35° 1

ovpperpos 24°35

oupmAnpodvv 36 31

ouppuns 27°1

ouvayev coni, ovypivery 29°29
— eis & 15°%6 — eis Ta 5U0 30°20

cuvappdTepov 22% 21

ovvdvacecOau 30°31; 32°30

ouvelpeny 16*8; 18%13 avveipecbat
36° 33

auvedOeiy 27° 5

ouvéxera 36°3

auvéxev 35%2

avpBoda 31°%24+;

Pg ee ae, ee; A a oe ee Pee

oo

rs

OOO EO EEO

a ne

LL

INDEX TO

auvexfs 26°10; 36%24—37%32

mb pot
ouvexets 257

préBes ouvexeis
ay*t TO ouvexes ToUTAS dmdpnya
27°32 auvexes elvar TO wav Opp.
Gnrecba Sinpnuévov 25°6 avrd
avT@ dei ovvexés 37°31 auvexois
Tivos GpOuds 6 xpévos37*%24 7 &v
T@ ovvexel petaBorAn a7” IQ ouve-
xs 18°75; 19°19; 35°19; 36°16;
37°34 3 38°13

3a ovvneav 25%22

avyOeots opp. diaAvois15%23 — opp.
diaipeots 17°12; 27°18 — dist.
pigis 28°64; 28°19 — awlo-

pévav 34°6
avvOeros opp. amAods 14%29 70
avvOerov opp. Ta dmaAG 34°35 ey
dmavtt T@ avvOérw mavta TA dada
évéorar 35%9
oundeiv 14°13

oumévat 15%23; 27°28 — opp.
diadverba 14°5
oumardvac opp. Siaxpivery 36%4

ouvéornkev 31°33; 34°16; 35%22
ai pica ovvect®om ovcia 28°33
ouvicrac@a opp. diadveOar 25°32

avvonros 21%2

auvoporoyeiaOa 29% 6

ovvopay 16° 5

auvTibévar 169 avvTidecOa 16%
3+; 25°34; 28°25; 33°9

ovvrdépws 17°14

ovvivupos 14% 20

ovoroxia 19*15

avoroxos 15% 21

opaipa 20°22; 34°33

opadrrAcoOa 17*20

opb5pa Opp. Taymay hpéua (mabntiKdy)
28°6

oxfua 26°15; 27°14 7d oxfjpa
coni. 7d efd0s 21527 oyxnpart
diapépovra pdvov (Ta mpHra Tov
owpatwv) 25°18
(= Democriti et Leucippi oreped

, Qbiaipera) 157+; 261; cf. 26%
4+ wpicdat oxhuact 25°27 +

oxnparifay 27°15

oxiCopévav Tav cwpaTav 27%15

omwewv 21°12 — TO Adyw Ta imap-
xovra 21°17, cf. * 29 ow erba
21%21; 22°24; _ 17+ Kara
puxpa ow (dpeva (7a pryvdpeva) 284%
7, cf. 34%29 et 34°6

Swxpdrns (6 & TO Saidwr) 35°10
eius de generatione et corruptione
doctrina examinatur 3512 sqq.

oGpa 161 + 3 19>r2; 20%2—21 15;
23°33; 26?15—29?15; 31°30
— coni. péyeOos 16415 +3 20%30+

THE TEXT

Ta oXNpaTa

293

— anrév 2915
pepdpevov 37°32 «70 Suvvape a@pa
aidO@nrév 29°33 mept aia@nrov
owpatos apxav 29°7sqq. oswpare
opp. dowparw abfdvecba 21*5

Ta owpara 283+ 3 33°17; 34*16;
35%22 = 7d dTAG owpaTa 31
28; 33°31; 33°27+ ; 36°1; 37°
8+ Ta GmWAG owpata 30°2+ ;
31°75 31°35 36°173 37°3 7a
mpara cwpara 30"6,cf.25"18 et 29%
28 «67d punta owpata 34°31 Ta
~vaika owpatra 32%4 TaaicOnra
owpata 2833, cf. 29%25 ocwpara
ddiaipera 14%21 ; 1529+; cf. 25”
17 sqq. — coni. peyé6n 16°15,

explicantur et inter se comparantur
Ta dmd& owpara 30°21 sqq.; Tis
6 tpdmos rhs eis GAAnAa petaBodAjs
31*7 sqq.; eorum motus naturales
et contra naturam 33° 26 sqq.

owparinéds 20°22; (coni. xwpiords)
29°9; 34°14+ Ta owpaTiKa
dist. 7a xivodvta (ctoyxeta Empe-
doclis) 14*16
TO owpevdpevoy péyeOos 25°22

‘ , e
TO KUKAW OWpa

Tagis opp. Oéois (Trav ddiaipérwv
aowpatov) 14*24; 1559 mavTov
yap gore Tags 36°12

(rarrev) év ovdSema xwpa TeTaypévn
37°15

Taxéws 32*31

reXela (coni, dmAq) yéveots 17°17

TEAEWS 30°75 35%2

Ta TéAn coni. 7a ein = Efers Tives
24518 | réAos = postremo 22°32

répve 16°11; 30°18

h TéExVN 35°33 Ta Téxvy dist. Ta
guoe yrdpeva 35°31 Ta amo
réxvns dist. 7a pier 35°28

% T:Onvn (in Platonis Timaeo) 29*23

év T@ Tipaiw 15°30; 25°24; 29°13;
32°29

réde tt coni. ovoia 17°31, cf. 1815
— coni. «dos 18°32 — opp.
roivde, moodv (onpaivev) I9*12,
cf, 181 7d. 7d8€ coni. ovata 17”
9+ 70 duvdper povov 7é5€ Kai ov
17°27 ) é« Tovde eis THOSE peTa-
Body 20°12, cf. 18%23 +

root 18°32 +; 37°26; 38°11
18*30+

roovdi 20° 22

ToLxos 34°20+ ; 34” I

roémos 20%20+ ; 2091; 23%1+; 34°
a; 37%27+ 6 wept 7d pécov 7é-
mos 35°25 wept Tov Tov péoou

Tovoal

204 INDEX TO THE TEXT.
témov 34°32 émov Siapopa mpoorn 35°32; 37844 38°17 — (coni,
23°6 bvo év 7 abvT@ owpara ap) wal ira drapary 34 29 — nupl
Tom 21%8, cf, 21 »16 xara Té- évaytiov 31° 23 35%5 7d tdwp

mov (ueraBdrdev) 14°27; Ig? 32 ;
20% 22 Témy opp. TO Adyy
(xwpiar?) HAn) 20°24 of rémot
= regiones elementis propriae 30”
31, cf. 34° 34

Tpaypdia 15” 14

TPAXY opp. Aeioy 29°20

Tpépeay dist. avgev 22% 23 Tpépe-
oda 35*10+ 8 — dist. avfecOa
22°24 TO Tpepdpevoyv 35°15

avrd 7d Tpbyovoy 16°12

Tpomrai 37° 12

Tpom Kat dadey7 (Democrit. ) r5" 38;
27°18 Tpom yap xpwparifecOa
16%2

Tpdmos 34°27 ; 36°31 Tov Tpémov
(nrovpev, GAN’ od TO tmoxeipevov
1858 6 rpémos Tis peTaBoAjs
ara (opp. 70 mept 6 éartv) 20%
10%: 27" TO Kat’ diAov Tpomov
ToLovTov 34” 16 Kara, Tov avTov
7 pomrov THs Hebsdou 27*30 TOV
eipnpevov Tpomov 34» 19 of Tpdmot
was” ois Ta pev moe TA Se naoxet
2 5» 12

wens = nutrimentum (@ agave) ar*
gaps 2a" 5, 928s 29" 14s 35° 10 +
= nutritio, dist. . abénas, 22°23 sqq.

(rvyxavev) Stas Eruxe opp. Adyy tii
(ouredGeiy) 32°10 pxOjvar ws
éruxev 33°16 6 tuxav 15>2
76 Tuxév 23°30

TUxXN 33°15 dnd TvxNs coni. dard
Tabrouarov 33” 7 — opp. mepu-
Kévat (vw pépecOar) 34% 2

byedev 24*30 bydfeobas 24°16
7 byalopevor 24> a

dyaivew a7” 34+ 3 19? 12

byiea 24°35; 24°15; 2842343 35”
ait

bypdy 14°19; 22%2; 29 >19—31" 33 ;
32° 20+ 3 34°29; 35°1+ — def.
29°30 — opp. memnyds 27°17 +,
cf. 30°14 evdpiaTov adore TO
iypov Tav Siaperav 284 TO
yAloxpov irypdv memovOds ri éorw
30%5 TO Dy pa puKTaA padiora TOY
cwpatov 283 wide etiam s.v. énpov

iypétns 30°7; 32°194 dAAoTpia
bypérns 30°17; (opp. oixeia) 3o*22

bdaphs 22% 32

bdaria 17° a8

biwp 192+; 20°8—22%32; 26%
33+ 5 28*11+; 29* 2+; 30°3 +;
31°4—33°25 5 34°23 + 5 35° + ;

yux pov kat inypsy 305, ypuxpod
_paddov } bypov 31%4 — povoy
Tov amwhav evddpiorov 35°%1 TO
viwp = Empedoclis elementum 4°
26—I15*19 Bdara 38°6
dew 38°74
vAn 1851443; 1932+; 20%2; 20°
10+ ; ar? ar +; 22°29+; 24%
2+ ; 24> 4+; 266; 28% 20+ ;
29°9+ ; 3 *184; 34° 3+5; 35°
I5+3 35 >16+3 36°21 — dpe-
7yé0ns 20532 — ovalas cwpatixfs
20522 — HeyéBous 21°7 ~—ai-
oOnrh opp. days 18520 — KEexa-
piopern air?) kaQ’ atThy opp. évuwdp-
xovoa &y Gry owpaTt 20% 3 3
— Twpariin kal xwpoTh 29% 9
— Tov owparoy Tav aid@nrav 29°
24 — Tov duoikov Toparov aa”
4 ouverdnjing Th dAn poppr
kat “7d eldos 35°16 = év HAy 21?
24? 4+ divev Hdns 28°12
es depot 20°10
77) BAN coni. 7a Kadovpeva oroxeia 22>)

— 7) ban maOnrindy 24° 18, cf. 35”

30 — } TpwTn 29° 23 — 70
pécov dvaia@nros ovca Kal dx dpioros
32°35 — dxdpiotos uey b inoKet-
pevn 5é€ Trois évaytios 29%30 (cf.
14°27; 15°21; 28°34; 30°13)
— wonep yévos "av dyrikeipévov)
246 boo. trEiw ry vAnv évds
TiWéaow 14* 11 (cf. 14%4 et 16)

7] as év bAns ibe TiWepnern airia 18%9
ds tam opp. ds wopph (sc. apy)
35°30 — opp. ws 76 od évexa
(sc. aintov) 355 aitia ws An
19*I9 7 0Ay (= causa ee

OPP. % moppn 36°14

kata thy vAnv opp. Kara ry. Ad-yov

17°24 — opp. sara 7d eldos
21%234 -
4 An (= EdAov) 27? 11

TAG dmapxovra (owfev) 21%18 —opp.
of Adyou 16%9 Tov indpxovTos
peyéBous érriSoc1s 20°30 = rd bdip-
Xov (7p) 22°14

bmeixew eis EavTd 30°8

trentixds 26% 14

dmeodvopévaw atin apes

imenpeiy 21> a

bmevaytios 232+

(bwepBaivew) imepBavtes tiv alc@now
wat mapidévTes avTHVY 25°13

bwepBaddrAcw 26% 12

bmepBoarn 30°25 +

Tian Stent 4, -

INDEX TO THE TEXT 295

Tas dmepoxas ddAANAaW (POeipev) 34°12
Bapvrepoy kara Thy bnEepoxhv 26%9
ideas 14° 9 hy brobécews aba
dvaykn ands 37° 26

broxeicba (ds An) 15*21; 19°3;
30°13 } bmowepevn tAn 28°34
(% _ Pn) drowepevn Tots dvarniows
2 *g0 Hb broxepion pias 2219
70 tmokeipevov 14°3; 15* L+5 17°
23; 18°9—20%2; 22°17; 298 42:5
2g>14 — opp. 70 mafos d Kara
Tot broxsipévou AéyeaOar mépunev
19” 9, cf. 24°16 ouneeinerdy Tl
Tois Kad oupevots oroxelors 29°16
éore Tt Kowdy’ TO broxelpevor 34°24
Ta bmoxeipeva, 20° 4

troxerrat = sumptum est 21°29; 32°
353; (wat 5é5enra) 36°23; 37°22

irodcimay 18%10+ ; 419 *28; 36526

bnopevew 19? 10—21 12; 32°8

broridecbat 16°75 18°; 35°12
imobéc bau 2954; 33°25 brode-
téov 14°26

70 toTepov et 7d mprepov 37°14 sqq.;
38°13 ovK éorat dvarynn TOW
vatepov Todt yevécOar amdrAWs 37° 26
év Tois oTEpov 17%30

6 év TG Paliwn SwKparns 3510
Ta pawvdpeva 15*%4; 1510; 25%26
— da ovvnPeay opp. TA Kadd 25%

21 ovdév GAN’ 7H pavdpevoy 16%

29 —s- TOls AALS Hatvopévors Owpact
bo 3 \ v > X >

30 érel © @ovro Tadnbés ev

To galveatai I 5°10 kata 72)v
aicOnaw paivera ywdpeva 31%9, cf.
36°16

(pavar) ppoee 35°24

péperdar 30°32; 35°19+ 3 37°9
— dvw 34%1+ 70 pepopevov
20°19 +; a0" 32 TO KUKAW o@pa
pepdpevor 37°33

saps tage ag 35°24; 35°33 37°
16 ; 38”

| pOelpew hie imepoxas GAARAwY 34>11

POeiperar amr@s opp. poeiperax Toot
18% 31 vide etiam s.v. yivec@at
Poivery 20°10+ 3 21°24; 22%24 7d
- pbivoy 20°19 + Ta POivovTa 20%
fe)
poiors 20? 315 22°33 — coni,
abgnors 14” I5+3 27°23 —coni.
aden 19°32 — opp. yéveors 36

Pris dh def. 18 10 = yéveois
Tivos 18% 34. % pOopa yéveois Tod
Ht) Ovros 19% 29 pOopa Trovdi (vel
Tivos) opp. Popa amas 18*30 sqq-
GdAou POopa GAAov yévets 19°21

4 Oarépov pOopa i) Odrepoy moe 4
Thy vAnv 34°7 vide etiam s.v.
yéveois

% pidia (Empedoclis) opp. 7d veios
15°17; 33°12+;34°8 ampdrepor
émi THs piAias opp. émt Tod veixous
viv 34°7

piroaopely 17? 30

pirogogia (H € érépa kai mpotépa) 18*6

paréBes owvexeis (rod maOnrtiKov) 26” 35

prog 31°25

poBetabar 17°29

popa (= peraBoadi kara Témov) 19” 325
30°15 +3 37°13 1 popa mporépa
THs yevécews 36°23 — mpwrn
Tav petaBord\av 36*19 h ave
popd 383 — ) mpurn popd opp.
% Kara tov dAofdv KvUKAOV 36*31
) TOU SAov Popa 363 ) KUKA®
opt 37°1+ 3 (opp. % ed0eia popa)

*7

TH popG dist. 7H dvwpadria (évayriat
KWTELS) 36% 30 kara TV
popav Kivnois 36°15 quomodo
% popa causa sit Tod yivecOa 36°15

849.

ppovrica 15°35

ppovdos 18°17

(pvev) mepunevat pépecbar 35° 193 ;
(opp. dnd TuXNS , Pepeoeas) 34° 4
mépuce 16%20; 19°9; 3 a3*10; 23°
7+;26%31; 278 3730" 333 31°13 +; ;
35°20; 36°3 + Ta mpos GAAniAa
ToUToY TOV _Tpomov mepuKéra 26 34
mepunas kal moeiv Kai maoxe 2775
TO pudpevov Ig*II

puortot Adyo. 16°13 ai pvatkai
momoest5°6 Ta pvotkd cwpara
32%4 agp?) ev Trois pvatkois
(opp. €v Tots pa@npariKois) 23%34
doo. évmxnkac. padAdov éyv ois
puoixoits 16°6 puoik@s Opp.
AoyiKGs 16°11 pvorewrepov A€éyew
35°25

gvois = rei natura 14°5; 2830 ——
() Tar orEpediv) se 17—27%20

h éxaorov vos 33” 17 ovK
elorqas yp éauTa Tis pvoews
23°29 h Tav elbiey pvots 35°10

7] droKepery pvois 22> 19

ovdév trept puaews ever ( ‘Epwedoudijs)
33°18 Garrecda Tis picews 24%
15

7 puos = universa natura 18*10 9
draca pots 15*7 Tov BedTiovos
dpéyecOai paper od prov 3628

Kara pvow 25%2; 2827 — (ner

oat) opp. mapa puow (= Big) 33°
27+ Kara plow kivnos 33°

296

32 } pOopa nal 4 yévents h kara
iow 36> 10+ mpérepa THY qoow
15°25 ™m pice mporepov 29°16
pvoe mporepa 33” 21 ai pice
auvecr@oa ovdiac 28°32 Ta
goce dist. 7a dard TEXUNS 35 b 98, cf.
» 32 - 7a pvoe dvta 33” 17 Ta
puoe yvopeva T4Sh s a3"%2"Se* 32
vos = yéveats (cit. ex Emped.) 14°7
Ta pura 35° 12
pown 14°13

xXarerwrepoy 334
28>8 +
— coni. Bpaxiay 21°

xadrerdy I 5 "24
XaAnés 19” 12°
xelp.21 2g
32, cf. 22°19
xOuv (cit. ex Emped. )33°1: 34% 8
xoevou Bdaros (pupios) 28%2 24
Lard ov now elvat (Anudxpitos)
I 6*1
xpoviws 28°35
gr°r1
xpévos coni. Bios 36°12 6 xpévos
37°22 + Tov dnayra Xpovov 18%4
ev tow xpovy 36” Io+ éy Te
drei py Xpovy 37*9 of xpéva Kal
oi Bio é ExdoTtov apd pov Exovar 3611
xpuads 29% oe +
Xpuaods 2
XpHpa 23 34 '
XpwpariCey 28°13
16%2
xupds 23°34 +

>

Xpoviwr épa H yéveats

xpwpariverbat

INDEX TO THE TEXT

xd&pa 35°21; 37°94 TO Kevov
= xwpa odparos 26°19

xapivey 26% 32 xerplfcobar 15° 9 +3
16°14; 26°28; 27°28; 29% 15)
éx Kexwpioperns abris Kad’ abriy THs
vAns 20% 33 KEXWpLO MEVOV 205;
23°23; 25%5; 27°28 Kexwpiope-
va (coni. dméxovra) peyedn 16°29

xwpis opp. dpa 22°14 weet. THY
abriy Urodqwréov elvar pvow .. . 7)
xwpis 14° 5

xwpiords 1603 +3 17°10+;

a1°7 5 ; 24°1g9+; 27>ar +;

29*1I0+

20° 34—
2835;
Ta 2) xwpiord 27°19

perrifecOar coni. émapporepicerv 289

pedbos 2626; 27%10+
Yixev 24% 10; 33°25 Yvxecba
2aPI5 ; 24% 173 24°23; 26%19

h Yuxty (doctrina Empedoclis exami-
natur) 34°10 + ai dAAowwoes ai
THS Yuxiis 34” om

ux pdr 14” i9% 19» 23; 26°3+; 29%

12—32°17; 34°44 — def. 29>
29 TO puxpév 24*10+; 26%5;
29*31; 30°27; 36%4 vide etiam
S. Vv. Beppdy ;

puxpdorns 189175 22517; 26°7; 294
34; 305264

adi 33°5 +5 38°3
ai dpa Kindy yivovrat 38>4
dis (= ob rws) 293

INDEX TO THE

INTRODUCTION

AND COMMENTARY

The references are to the sections of the Introduction and to the pages of
the Commentary.

Action—Passion 148-75 — always
between differentiations of an iden-
tical substratum, &c. 151.ff.; 172
—involves reaction and re-passion
157 — comp. with ‘ moving—
being moved’ 153-4 —mechan-
ism of 156-75 —not between
‘likes’ only (the view of Demo-
kritos) nor between ‘ unlikes’ only
148-51

Aether (= the fifth ‘simple body’)
§ 10; 138; 248; 256 = Fire
(Anaxagoras) 66 = Air (Empe-
dokles) 233-4; 238

Agents, ‘first’ )( ‘last’ (= ‘ proxi-
mate’) 153 ff. ¢ — relatively )(
absolutely dnadi 153-6 —comp.
with ‘ movers ’ 146-8 ; 153-4 —-do
not act by penetration through

‘pores’ 169-71

Air (= the ‘ hot-moist simple body’),
par excellence ‘ moist’ 219 a
sort of aqueous vapour (drpis) 139 ;
213; 221; 222; 260 —a con-
stituent of every dyoiopepés § 11;
643; 244-5 — more ‘real’ than
Earth 102, and than Water 260
—formation of 221 See also s.v.
Elements

Alkmaion of Kroton probably origin-
ated the theory of ‘ pores’ 156 his
theory of PL aes 157

Allen, T. W
pelea (dAAoiwars) )( coming-to-
6-7 —comp. with growth
I rb -7 — Aristotle’s theory of

105-10; 118-20; 197-8
Anaxagoras ‘failed to understand his
own utterance’ 64 — postulated
primordial ‘togetherness’ of all
things 179 his theory )( that of
Empedokles 63; 66
Hepy (Gpotopéperar, oméppara) 65

his dpot0- ©

his aiéqp = Fire 66
of thunder § 8; § 9
Anaximander, his conception of the
‘Boundless’ 193 ; 194; 199; 224-6
Anaximenes 140; 193
Antecedent and consequent in a tem-
poral sequence, Aristotle’s doctrine
of their wexus 272-4
Archelaos 249
Aristotle discusses ‘ indivisible magni-
tudes’ 76-86 —criticizes Anaxa-
goras 64; 179 — Anaximander
194; 199; 224-6 — Atomists 71;
164-9 ; 183-4; 248-9 — Eleatics
161 — Empedokles 68-9 ; 158 ;
163-4; 169-71; 231-40; 248-9
— Plato (7 imacus) 70; 73-43 75-
6; 194-8 — Pythagorean mate-
rialists 249-52 — ‘Sokrates in
the Phaedo’ 248-9
his conception of the three uAo-
copia: Oewpntixat §§ 1-2 — of
‘first philosophy ’ (@eoAoyien) §§ 3-
— of natural philosophy and
the mathematical sciences § 2;
— of astronomy
— of demonstration
§§ 7-9 —of the unity ofa science
— of ‘ scientific ’ definition
§ 9; 122; 127-8; 177
his conception of Aether § 10; 138 5

his theory

248 ; 256 — of aiabnos as 60-
vapus KpLTLKH 151 — of ‘ cycles’
260; 265-7; 274-7 — of de-

grees of reality §3; 100-1; 180-1;
241-4; 260 —of ‘dense )( rare’
1243; 2043 225- -6 — of 7d Suva-
tov 77-8 —of 7d épefijs, Td éxd-
Hevov, TO ouvexés 80-1; 271 —of
the ‘twofold exhalation’ 1 39; 188;

92%+ 322 — of God § 4; 255-6
— of the ‘natural heat’ 111; 133;
205-7; 246; 249; 261 —of the

298 INDEX TO INTRODUCTION & COMMENTARY

dporomep, §11; 64-5; 129-30;
177-8; 188; 192-3; 204-7; 240-
6 —of ‘place’ (rémos) 116
— of time 81; 267; 269 — of
‘the void’ 115
his theory of action-passion 151-75

— of ‘alteration’ 105-10; 118-20;
2197-8 —of ‘combination’ (pifgts)
175-89; 239-44 — of coming-
to-be 88-105; 246ff. — of
growth 118-21; 122-4; 127-36
— of the ‘infinite’ 96 — of the
light and heat of meteors, planets,
stars §10; 139-40 —of ‘ physi-
cal contact’ 141-8 —of the
physical Cosmos §10; 138-40;
144-6; 247-8; 253-6; 266-7
— of mputn tAn §10; 92-43; 97;
118-20; 137; 189; 193-4; 198-
200 See also s. vv. Cause, Contact,
Elements, Matter, Motion

Assimilation (in growth) 132-6 —
due to action—passion 152

‘ Association’ and ‘ dissociation’ re=
tard and hasten yéveois and pOopa
87. —attributed by Empedokles
to ‘ Love’ and ‘ Strife’ 236-8

Astronomy, Aristotle’s conception of
§ 53; § Io

Atomism, its experiential basis 84
— its affiliation to Eleatic monism
159-60 ; 162-3 — criticized by
Aristotle 71; 164-9; 183-4; 248-
9 See also s.v. Demokritos

Birth and death § 11; 191-3; 205-7;

259-62

Bisection, progressive 78

Bodies, the ‘ heavenly’ § 10; 247-8;
265 — the ‘simple’, see s.v.
Elements

The ‘ Boundless ’ (Anaximander) = a
body intermediate between Fire and
Air 193; 194; 199; 224-6

Brittle-viscous («padpov — yAioxpov)
209-10; cf. 187

Burnet, Prof. John 67; 94

Cause = middle term in dwédegis
§§ 8-9; ‘external’)( ‘immanent’
128 — ‘instrumental’ 248-52

— ‘adequate’, of avgnows 127

efficient cause 153-4 —of yéveois
95; 120-1; 250; 251; 253-63
— of moinots 120-1 ; 153-6; 250-2
— of abfnors 111; 123; 127; 128;
1333 136; 249 .

final cause, of yéveos 953 235;
2473 251-2; 263-5 ~—of moinows
154-53 251-2 —of avénos 123;
249

formal cause, of yéveois 2353 247;
250-2 —of moinois 120-1; 153-
53 250-2

material cause, of yéveows 95; 97-8;
248-52; 262-3 — of roinots
155-6; 250-1 — of avfyats
122-3 (cf. 112-20 ; 128-30)

final, formal, and efficient causes =
God § 4; 251; 255-6 causes of
the ‘ heavenly bodies’ 247-8

Chiasmus 221

Coarse-fine (1axv-Aemrév) 204 ; 208-
9; 225-6

Colour, Aristotle’s definition of 203
— Demokritos’ view of 71; 74-5

the scale of colours 151

Columns, the contrasted, (cvarorxias)
101; 103

Combination (pigts) 175-89; 239-44
)( GAoiwars, av’égors 178-9 re
yéveots and @Oopa 178; 241-4

. )( mechanical mixture (ovv@ea:s)
182-5 ; 239-40 — depends on
degrees of reality 179-81; 241-4
— involves all four ‘ simple bodies’,
and results in a duotopepés 177-8 ;
cf. 240-5 — in the end only of
liquids 185; 186-7 —‘nominal’
definition of §9; 175-6 —
‘scientific’ definition of §9; 189
— primary subject of (= ‘ the com-
binable’) 185-6 — imperfect
forms of 187

Combining-formula (Adyos rijs uigews)
643 70-1; 1303 235

Coming-to-be (and passing-away) 88-
105; 246 ff. —‘ unqualified’ )(
‘qualified ’ 88-95; 98-103 )( ‘al-
teration ’ 86- — ‘nominal’
definition of 88 § — ultimate pre-
suppositions of §10; 92-4; 97;
118-20; 137; 189; 193-4; 198-
200 — is always a two-sided
process 97; cf. 198-9 —why it
never fails to occur in nature 94-8;

254-61 See also s.vv. Birth,
Cause

The ‘ Consecutive’ (7d épegfjs) 80-1 ;
271

Contact = coincidence of the limits of
two peyé0n 80-1 ; 82; 141 --
strictly is reciprocal (between puotnd
owpara) 141-3; 146-8 — loosely
applied to 7d paOnparina 141;

eo eee eee eee eeoooeee.rmlhcrerer emereeeeeerreeorrerrrerrerrerreerreererererorrereorrermceoereerceeororerrereeeoeoeeeeoorreeroerrrrrrre _—30 eee ee ee

INDEX TO INTRODUCTION & COMMENTARY 299°

143-4 —‘ one-sided’ (e. g. rela-
tion of Upper to Lower Cosmos)
138; 142-3; 146-8 —of ‘whole
with whole’ 82 ; 85 — identified
with o7ypn, diaipeois 81; 82
Contingent (= hypothetically )( ab-
solutely necessary) 271-5
Continuity, primarily spatial 81 ; 268-
70 — of motion and change 81 ;
265-70 — of time 81; 269
The Continuous (7d ouvexés) 80-1;
271
The ‘ Contraries’ (ef0s and orépyais)
.=a ‘constitutive moment’ (o7or-
xetov) of body § 10; 973 137;
198-200; (cf. 92-3; 118-20)
Contrarieties of touch 202-12 -—
‘ primary ’ =‘ constitutive moments’
of the ‘simple bodies’ 189; 199-
200; 200-3; 212-13; 223-30
Cosmos, the physical § 10; 138-40;
144-6; 247-8; 253-6; 266-7
‘Cycles’ 260; 265-7; 274-7

Definition, ‘nominal’ )( ‘ scientific’
§ 9; 122; 127-8; 177. —‘ nomi-
nal’, of dAAoiwois cf. 105-7 —of
avfnats 122-3 . — of yéveois 88
— of pigis §9; 175-6 — ‘scienti-
fic’, of fo ae 127-9 — of pifis
§ 9; 18

Decaokritas, praised for his method
76; cf. 158-9 |—conceived pifis
as a shuffle of atoms 183-4 his
distinction between ‘ true-born ’ and
‘ bastard’ knowledge 71-2 his
theory of action-passion 148-50
— of the secondary qualities 71-2 ;

74-5
D. and Leukippos, their theory 65-

6; 71-2; 74; 76 ff; 84; 156;
158-9; 164-9; 248-9 — its
affiliation to Eleatic monism 159-
60; 162-3

eee itis Aristotle’s theory of
§§ 7 — ideally-perfect (=
ed Bas Tov &dr) §8 its
conclusion a commensurate judge-
ment including the middle term §9
its relation to definition § 9

Dense-rare (muxvéy—pavér) 124 3 204;
225-6

Descartes, his deductio = Aristotle’s
dnbdeieus §9

Diogenes of Apollonia 140-1; 193

‘Discretes-in-contact’ 1 595 160-3
173;

Dry smoist t (énpdv—bypév) = a smary

contrariety of touch 200 ff. — de-
fined 208 — passive, acted on by
the ‘hot-cold’ 205-7 = —deriva-
tive forms of 211-12 reciprocal
action—passion of ‘the dry’ and
‘the moist’ 204-5 (cf. 186; 241-
4) the ‘tempered-dry’ 205; 242

Earth, a constituent of every dpuoo-
Hepés § 11; 64; 244-5 — re-
quired as food by all living things
245-6 — ‘absolutely heavy’, at
rest at the centre, the central body,
Ber $1403. 14gg 1463 236;
245 ‘— less ‘ real’ than Air 102
— identified with 70 yy dv by ‘ Par-
menides’ (= Pythagoreans) 100;
cf. 214 See also s.v. Elements

Ecliptic, the 255; 257; 259; 260;
275

Eleatic monism, its affinity to Atomism
159-60; 162-3 — criticized by
Aristotle 161

Elementary qualities, see s.vv. Dry-
moist, Hot-cold

Elements of body (orox eta) = Tpwrn
vAn, efits and orépynois § 103 1373
189; 193-4; (cf. 92-4; 97; 198-200)
— (Ta kahovpeva oroxeia) = the
‘simple bodies’ 137; 189; 191
— Aristotle’s doctrine of §10;
137-40; 189-230; 241-4; 266-7
— first informations of mpwrn An
§ 10; 337; 189 — Air, Earth,
Fire, Water impure examples of
2133 217 — their ‘natural’
movements §10; 139; 238 —_
their ‘ places’ § 10; 138-40; 144-
5; 218 — their ‘ natural series”
219-21 —Zin what sense they are
ovpBaAntéd 242 —their reciprocal
transformations 219-30 — Em-
pedokles’ theory of, criticized 68-9 ;
163-4; 231-40

Ellipse 270.

Empedokles, quoted by Aristotle 67;
231; 233-43 235; 238-9 ee
parodied (?) 235 — criticized
68-9; 158; 163-4; 169-71 ; 231-
40; 248-9 — conceives the
‘real’ as ‘ discretes-in-contact ’ 159
(cf. 160-2 ; 173; 174) —denies
a ‘void’ 160-1 ; cf. 163 — ex-
plains perception ” by ‘ effluences’
and ‘ pores’ I 57-8 — explains
pigis by ‘ pores’ 159 — fails to
explain psychical phenomena 239

his theory ‘diametrically opposed ’

300 INDEX TO INTRODUCTION & COMMENTARY

to that of Anaxagoras 63 ; 66 his
‘elements’ 68-9; 161; 163-4 ;
231-40 — ‘Love’ and ‘Strife’
64; ge 231; 234-9 — ‘Sphere’
68-9; 161; 179; 236; 240 _
loose account of motion 236-9
—aidnp = Air 233-4; 238

Epikouros gr

Eudoxos §5 3-4

Exhalation, She | Ppwotold’, Aristotle’s
theory of 139; 188 ; 221 ; 222

Fire = the fiery ‘ simple body’, hot-
dry vapour, ofov iméxxavpa 139; ;
ai3 5217 — ‘absolutely light’
§ 10; 1443 ve 218 — how
it contributes to constitute every
Sporopepés 246 — called aiéjp
by Anaxagoras 66 — contrasted
with Earth by ‘Parmenides’ (=
Pythagoreans) 100; cf.214 See
also s.v. Elements

Food (materia ex qua of growth)
113; 122-36 — of all living
things, at least two ‘ elements’
244-6

‘Forms’ and ‘ Participants’ (theory
of ‘Sokrates in the Phaedo’) 248-9

Genitive, partitive, in singular 270
— absolute, without expressed sub-

ject 69
God, Aristotle’s conception of §4;
255-6 — in the theory of Em-

pedokles = the ‘Sphere’ 236
Growth (and diminution) 110-36
—‘nominal’ definition of 122-3
— ‘scientific’ definition of 127-9
—is a uniform proportional expan-
sion of the ‘ form’ of the growing
tissue 129-32 5 135-6 5 (cf. 112-13 ;
122) — assimilation in 132-6
— involves dAAoiwois and yéveois
Kai pOopa 122 — dist. from nu-
trition 134-5 — treatise on, as-
cribed to Aristotle 110 See also
s.v, Cause

Hard-soft (oxAnpév—padaxév), defined
204; cf. 210-11 — derived from
‘dry-moist’ 208 ; 210-11

Heat, the ‘ natural’, ‘inner’, ‘ vital’
(ovppuros Oeppdrns von, KTA.)
III; 133; 205-7; 246; 249; 261

nee Sir Thomas 145; 253-4;

259
Heavy-light (Bapt-Kxodpov) 204 (cf.
§ 10; 144; 146; 218)

Herakleitos 140; 193

Hippasos 193

Hot-cold (Gepudv-yuxpév) =a _ pri-
mary contrariety of touch 200 ff.
— defined 207. — active, operat-
ing on the ‘dry-moist’ 205-7 _re-
ciprocal action-passion of ‘the
hot’ and ‘the cold’ 204-5 (cf. 186 ;
241-4) the ‘ tempered-hot’ 205;
241-23 2443 246

The ‘ Immediately-next’ (rd éxdpevor)
80-1; 271

Indivisible magnitudes, discussed 76-
86 . —planes (Plato’s theory),
criticized 73-4; 75-6; 194-8 —
contrasted with the theory of Leu-
kippos 156 — solids (theory of
Leukippos and Demokritos), criti-
cized oe

Infinite, no ‘ actual’ 96 — recti-
linear succession, has no dpxn 273-
4 — (Anaximander’s drepov),
seé $.¥. Boundless

Intelligences, the ‘heavenly’ § 10;

(55

Intermediates (7a peragv) = blends of
contraries 151 (cf. 214; 241-4)
—(eg. the ‘tempered-hot’) )(
bAn 241-2

Ion of Chios 193; 214-15; 216

Kallippos § 5; 253-4
Kant’s conception of ‘das Reale’

124

Leukippos, quoted (?) by Aristotle
163 —his theory contrasted with
that of Plato 156 See also 5. V.
Demokritos
Lynkeus 185

Mathematical philosophy § 2 ; §§ 5-7.

its connexion with natural philo-
sophy § 6
its objects (7d paOnuarind) § 5;
116; 118; 143-4 —their matter
(dAq vonrn) §10; 144 —are not
‘in place’ 116; 143 — in what
sense they ‘ have position’ and can
be ‘in contact’ 143-4
Matter, ‘ultimate’ (mpwrn An) =a
‘constitutive moment’ (orotxetov)
of body, isolable by definition § 10;
92-4; 97; 118-20; 137; 189;
193-4: 198-200
— ‘proximate’ = the material con-
stituents of the 6 potope phy 923; 973

[TA < agian t> a ee
i en Oe a ee

te

Py ee oe ee ee

INDEX TO INTRODUCTION & COMMENTARY 301

136 ff.; 189; &c. — of sub-
stantial change 104-5; 248 —
not 7a yewperpika 118-19 vs
matter of dAAoiwois, avlénats, po
II0; 118-20
— identical numerically, not ‘in
potentiality’ 169; cf. 124 —‘ir-
regularity’ in 262
—of rd yewperpixd (An vonTn)
§ 10; 144 —of popd (An wider
molt, TomuKN) §10; 110; 248 See
also s. v. Cause
Melissos 159; 161
Motion (gopd) = primary form of
change 254 —implied in growth
and diminution 112-13; 122; 130-
2 —‘contrariety’ of 257. —
‘natural’ )( ‘unnatural’ 237-8; cf.
§10 —‘simple’ )( ‘composite’

—

70; cf. § 10 — ‘uniform’ )(
‘irregular’ 257-8 — continuity
of 265-70 — of the mpa@ros ov-

pavés 255-6; 258; 269; 275-6
—of the sun ‘along the inclined
circle’ 255-7; 259; 275

Mover, the ‘first? = God 95; 154;
251; 255-6; cf. § 4 — ‘abso-
Intely’ )( ‘relatively’ unmoved
146-8; 153-4

Natural philosophy § 2; §§ 5-7; § 10
its connexion with the mathematical
sciences § 6; cf. § 10

Necessity, absolute )( hypothetical
271-5 — absolute, involves

~ eternity 274

Not-being, ‘ unqualified’ = sheer no-
thing 89-91; 104 = the ‘imper-
ceptible’ 101-2; 104 = ‘nega-
tive real’ (in ‘ Parmenides’, i.e.
the Pythagorean theory) 99-100;
cf. 214

Nutrition )( growth 134-5

Ogle, Dr. William 201; 208; 216
Oil, ‘ viscous’ 187 ; 209 — full of

_ air 209-10

The Order (rdfis) controlling all
things in the Cosmos 261-2; 267

Parmenides 159; 160; 161 = Py-
thagorean theory criticized in the
‘Way of Opinion’ 100; 160; 193;
2143 2413 251 :

Philosophy, ‘ speculative’ )( ‘ prac-
tical’ and ‘productive’ §§ 1-2
— articulated into three § 2 —
‘first’ (Peodroyen) §§ 3-4; ch 95

—‘ second’ (pvouh) §§ 5-73 § 10
— ‘mathematical’ §§ 5-7; cf. § 10

Place (rémos), Aristotle’s conception

of 116 — ‘primary differentia-
tion’ of 144-6; 218; (cf. §10;
138-40) — ‘immediately-con-
tinent’ (rémos té:0s, mp@Tos) 80-1 ;
116 — ‘imaginary’ (7d cuvexés,
vont? vAn) 143-4; cf. § 10 _
to ‘occupy’, to ‘be in’ (rémov
Karéxe, év Tomy elvat) 115-16

Plato, his dypapa Séypara 215-16

his ‘ Divisions’ (év rais d:apécecuv)
214-17 his doctrine of 7d pA dv
(Sophzst) go — of ‘the One’,
‘the Great and the Small’ (Phi/e-
bus) 216

— (Zimaeus) his conception of ‘in-
divisible planes’ 73-4; 75-6;
118; 173; 194-8; (contrasted with
the theory of Leukippos 156) —
‘elementary triangles’ 70; 76;

164; 216; 226 — ‘the Omni-
recipient ’ (76 mavdexés) 194-8 —
formation of Soul 217. — yéveois
of flesh, bone, &c. 70

— Phaedo 248-9 — Philebus
216; 235 —Politicus216 —
Republic § 4 — Sophist 90;
215-16

Platonists, their argument for ‘ indi-

visible magnitudes’ 76

Point, not ‘ consecutive’ nor ‘imme-

diately-next’ to point 81; 85 —Zin
what sense ‘ everywhere’ in a mag-

nitude 85 = —has ‘ position’, but
no ‘ place’ 115-16 (cf. §6; 81;
143-4) — can only be in con-

tact ‘whole with whole’ 82; 85;
cf. 81

Pores, conception of, probably due to

Alkmaion 156 — in Alkmaion’s
theory of perception 157 —in
the theory of Empedokles 157-8 ;
159; 161; 163; 169-71 —called
xoavat, ddoxes by Empedokles 163

‘Powers of action’ (in Aristotle’s

theory of pigis) 180-1; 186; 241-
4; cf. 232-3

Proprium = major term in the ovAAo-

yeopos Tod bdr § 8; 109-10; cf.
128

Pythagoreans 100; 159-61; 193;

208 ; 214; 239 3 241 ; 248 ; 249-52

Reality, degrees of § 3; 100-1 ; 180-

I 3 241-4; 260

Rough-smooth (rpaxv-Acioy) 204

302 INDEX TO INTRODUCTION & COMMENTARY

Science (drodexrinn émoarnun), unity
ofa §6 —procedure of §§ 7-9
— subalternant )( subalternate § 6

Seasons, cycle of the 260; 266; cf.
275-6

Smith, Prof. J. A. 94

‘Sokrates in the Phaedo’, criticized
248-9

Solstices, the 259; 271-2

Soul ( mpwrn, yevynrinn, Operrixn,
avénrixn, Yvxn) = efficient cause of
growth 1113; 423; 129% way;
128-9; 1333 136; 249 = form
of the tissue or organ (ef5os évvAor,
duvapis tis év HAN) 130-2; 135-6
= efficient cause of yéveois 250
— (70 édpextixdv) moves the animal
154

—the human, essentially intelli-

gent §1 — is ‘in place’ xara
oupBeBnkéds 116 — Empedokles
fails to account for 239 — Plato’s

account of its formation 217

The ‘Sphere’ of Empedokles 68-9 ;
161; 179; 2363 240 = a mere
shuffle of the ‘ elements’ 240

arena opposition 149
ubstance, ‘simple’ )( ‘composite’
$3335

The Sun = 70 yevynrindy 255 3 256—
615 275

Thales 63 ; 140

Theology = ‘first philosophy’ or
metaphysics )( natural philosophy
and mathematics § 2 — scope

of §§ 3-4 — central object of
(= God) § 4 — discusses laws
of Contradiction and Excluded
Middle § 4 — discusses degrees
of reality § 3

Time 81; 267; 269

Tissues (cf. dpoopep) compared to
‘ducts’ 130-1 ; 135-6 —double
sense of 129-30 )( the ovvOera
pépia 192

Touch, contrarieties of 202-12 —
the most indispensable sense 202
—less pure than vision 202-3

‘ Veins of susceptibility’ 172 ; cf. 124

Vision, prior to touch 202-3 a
‘ object ’ of 203 — Empedokles’
theory of 158

Vital, ‘ cycle’ 265-6 —heat 111;
1335 205-7; 246; 249; 261 —
period 261-2; 275

Water (= the ‘cold-moist simple
body’), par excellence ‘cold’ 219
— of all the four ‘elements’ most
typically exemplifies ‘the moist’
218-19; 245 —a constituent of
every dpouopepés § 11; 643 244-5
—required as food by all living
things 245-6 §—less ‘real’ than
Air 260 See also s.v. Elements

Xenophanes 146

Zeno 159; 160 — said to have
written an attack on Empedokles
16

dvadoyia, kat’ dvadoyiay, raiTé 232-3

70 GmAds dv (ui) dv), two senses of go
70 dmha@s pr) ov )( TO ph dv amABs 93

dmopia 72-3; cf. 76

apxn dist. from oraxeiov 193-4

avAds 130-1 5 135

abénrixév, 7d évdév 132-3; 1363 178-
9; 249; cf. 128

avra mpds atta 65-6

yevnros, yevynros 247
70 yevyntixdy 256

_ Beixea. (Demokritos) 75
5:a8vyq (Leukippos and Demokritos)

75
ai diapéoes (of Plato) 214-17
Sioptopds 194; 243

eldds Tt xwpiorov 7) m4B0s 80-1 —
évvdov 1313 155 — dropov
§§ 7-8; § 10 —(Kxarnyopia tis)
\( orépnots Lol év bAns etder 95

eiSwAa (Demokritos) 75

70 8 eivas ov 7d abrdé 105; cf. 135
ei €or GTAGs )( emt pépovs 89 Hv
68 ; 187

éxeivivoy )( éxeivo 197

énavamodioTéov 93

7d épeg is, dntépevov, éydpevor, ouvexeés
80-1; 271 ;

Oewphaoat mepi Tt IQT

idéa (or oxnpara) = the ‘indivisible
bodies’ of the Atomists 71

he ie

INDEX TO INTRODUCTION & COMMENTARY 303

Kamvds 221 3 222

KeArtids kaoctrepos 188

kivnots, its three ef6n 94-5; 105-6
Kpaots 185

TO KUKAOPOpHTiKOY GHpA O5

Adryos = elSo0s )( HAN 87
fews 64; 7O-1; 130; 235
Adyov akodovbeiy 213
dialectical discussions 76

Kara
Adyar =

peraBorn and xlynots, use of the terms
in Aristotle 94-5 ; 105-6

piypa (? Anaxagoras) 179
‘Sphere’ of Empedokles 179 (2); ’
240

TO ptxOév = ingredient 133

Gmovopeph = oTéppara TavTwVv xpn-

parewyv (Anaxagoras) 65 —in
Aristotle’s theory § 11; 64-5;
129-30; 177-8; 188; 192-3;

204-7 3 240-6
épavupov 188-9
ovoia, ai pice cvvecTM@oM 191-3
TO oUTws pr dv )( TO pr obTws dy 94

md0os, nal’ airé § 83 109-10; cf. 128
= maOnTiKy MoLdTHSIIO;120 maby
= ddAowoets 109 év Tois EavTOU
madect weraBadrAav 107

mavotreppia 66

mapadoyCopevos 84

KaTa TAaTOS ovvTibecOa 75-6

nvedpa, €uputov or ovppuroy 127

moveitv, construction of 149-50; 204

—nral ndcxev treated as a single
verb 150; 157
mo.Tns, four main types of 106-7
mpoBrnya. § 9

onpetoy, wider term than oriypy (?) 86

onéppata (Anaxagoras) 65

orépnois §10; YI1-2; 975; 1373 198-
200 ; 225-6; cf. 118-20

arotxetov, dist. from dpx 193-4 =
: Boop nines quality ° 2133 249

‘ primary body’ 202 7a Ka~

NoUpeve oToxeia 137

ovryKpacis 262-3

ovyKpovais 262-3

ovpBorov 220-1

7 auvexés 80-1 ; 271
vAn 144; cf. § 10
4 Sieopro pevov 144

auvevtpws )( mod\Aax@s (dpovipws,
KTA.) A€yecOat 142.

oxnpata (Leukippos and Demokritos)

71

= vont?
mogov auvexés

TOOE TL Q4

bméxnavpa 139

dmevayriov 149

broxeipevov yévos of a science §§ 6- -7
— of pvaiunwn §10

vows = yéveois (?) in Empedokles 67
= dppn) peraBoAjs Eupuros § Io

xadrkds 188

PRINTED IN ENGLAND

”

.

AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

eva

Se a
ee

¥ ¥

so
a.
.
rs
~

+

a

_ rn 4
Nees

ws

Gi
ee ae

a

LS

cv*
6TH
ad

Tt
D ®q)
304 STuy

SU0T Bieus
OD UD = eT

PONTIFICAL INSTITUTE OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
59 QUEEN'S PARK CRESCENT

TORONTO—5, CANADA
15951 -

ap th ll

*

Bene :
ets

*
cs

oe

Sates
eaees

sect atate ot
bate tt